Kubuntu and Music production
-
hubird
Wow... Haven't been at the Z in a while and this thread is right up my alley, so here it goes...
You are all missing the point. That Linux distributions aren't perfect in every way, or that the open-source sequencers aren't as polished as the commercial sequencers which have been refined for 20 years is totally irrelevant to why Linux should be THE audio platform moving forward. First off, it's totally modular, so you can strip out all the bits of the operating system you don't want, or that would get in the way of peak audio performance, meaning you can make it very very very lean. Second, you don't need permission from anyone to customize it, or distribute it so long as you comply with whatever pertinent license is being used by the components you CHOOSE TO USE (if it's a BSD or Apache license, you're all a-go, if it's a GPL license, you have to be very explicit about keeping the proprietary modules separate and sitting on top of the GPL'd tools).
But if you think that Linux sucks and will never make a good audio platform, then go look at the Receptor Muse box. It is a linux box. Then go look at your Linksys router. It is a linux box. Then look at your DVR, DVD Player, Nokia or Motorola cell phone, etc, etc, etc... and about 65%+ will have a Linux kernel running underneath it.
Then look at 70% of all websites. They are being hosted on Linux by Apache. Then look at OSX. Darwin is basically a modified BSD kernel. The windowing system is a modded X11. OSX is essentially a 2nd cousin to Linux. But even THAT isn't the point.
The point is, that like every other operating system out there (as has been tirelessly beaten to death in previous posts), once you try and make it do everything, it begins to lose it's stability and speed, but at explicit tasks, there's nothing more dynamic, stable, and cheap than Linux. It is THE platform for making dedicated hardware.
If SonicCore ever wanted to make the Scope platform like a Paris box, or just slap it in a 2U box and make it a stand-alone box (and laptop portable...<nudge nudge>) that could be interfaced with a la Noah/ASB boxen, then a Linux box would be the ideal platform to power it. The Jack audio subsystem is essentially the same as the Scope routing system. It has no functional latency until you put ALSA on top of it. There are libraries which can make ALSA run VSTs at half the latencies as ASIO or Core Audio. That is essentially what the Muse Receptor box is/does.
I use Ubuntu on all my machines except for one Windows box which runs Scope, one VM (sitting on top of Ubuntu) which runs my Blackberry server for Domino, and an OSX VM (again, sitting on top of Ubuntu) that I use for Safari testing.
Linux is not a panacea, but I simply could not afford to run my web development / computer consulting business using either Mac OR PC. In addition to the costs of the operating system, applications, and support contracts / seat licenses, there is the time required to maintain these systems and the costs that are incurred every year or so with forced upgrades. I'm just as productive with Inkscape and Gimp as I am with Photoshop, and I don't have to steal or pay out of pocket every time they decide to release new features or fixes.
Mac is better by far in terms of stability and support, and still eclipses Linux in usability (though not by much anymore now that Compiz Fusion is maturing), but Vista is a steaming turd in comparison to the latest Ubuntu and OSX releases, be it in speed, stability, security, or elegance. I can understand why Linux might not be suitable for many people in it's current state, but given how hard it was to use four years ago and how easy to use it is now (both my parents use Ubuntu now), in a few years time, I don't think Microsoft will be a major player at all. They simply refuse to make decisions that make the market happy, and they are holding up the game.
You'll note that their five year old OS is catching up to Vista in terms of OEM sales. And that's AFTER everyone switched ALL bundled OSes to Vista. No one wants it. People can't find their settings, they don't want to be asked for permission to do every last thing, and those questions don't make the OS any safer and people know it. On top of that, all the beta testers of Vista SP1 have concluded that none of the major speed, stability, and security issues will be addressed by the upcoming service pack. Whereas Linux bugs get patched MUCH more quickly.
I use OSX on a regular basis, and as good as it is, it is still an expensive closed box. Perhaps not as expensive as it used to be, but not exactly cheap either. If you want to do anything interesting, you still have to play ball with the way Steve Jobs wants the Mac to run. While in most use cases, that does not poison the waters, it does slow progress overall for computing. Were it not for the fact that OSX was the primary alternative to Windows, the computing landscape would not have moved forward at all, but Mac is basically a Streamlined UNIX box that you can't take off the rails.
But Linux could be used to make incredible specialized devices which allow tremendous flexibility, on-stage stability, and low cost for hardware developers. Once the market is built, you'll see Ableton move to Linux, as they have already expressed interest from a technology standpoint. Other will follow. Someone just needs to be a leader for it to start.
My $.10
Sam
You are all missing the point. That Linux distributions aren't perfect in every way, or that the open-source sequencers aren't as polished as the commercial sequencers which have been refined for 20 years is totally irrelevant to why Linux should be THE audio platform moving forward. First off, it's totally modular, so you can strip out all the bits of the operating system you don't want, or that would get in the way of peak audio performance, meaning you can make it very very very lean. Second, you don't need permission from anyone to customize it, or distribute it so long as you comply with whatever pertinent license is being used by the components you CHOOSE TO USE (if it's a BSD or Apache license, you're all a-go, if it's a GPL license, you have to be very explicit about keeping the proprietary modules separate and sitting on top of the GPL'd tools).
But if you think that Linux sucks and will never make a good audio platform, then go look at the Receptor Muse box. It is a linux box. Then go look at your Linksys router. It is a linux box. Then look at your DVR, DVD Player, Nokia or Motorola cell phone, etc, etc, etc... and about 65%+ will have a Linux kernel running underneath it.
Then look at 70% of all websites. They are being hosted on Linux by Apache. Then look at OSX. Darwin is basically a modified BSD kernel. The windowing system is a modded X11. OSX is essentially a 2nd cousin to Linux. But even THAT isn't the point.
The point is, that like every other operating system out there (as has been tirelessly beaten to death in previous posts), once you try and make it do everything, it begins to lose it's stability and speed, but at explicit tasks, there's nothing more dynamic, stable, and cheap than Linux. It is THE platform for making dedicated hardware.
If SonicCore ever wanted to make the Scope platform like a Paris box, or just slap it in a 2U box and make it a stand-alone box (and laptop portable...<nudge nudge>) that could be interfaced with a la Noah/ASB boxen, then a Linux box would be the ideal platform to power it. The Jack audio subsystem is essentially the same as the Scope routing system. It has no functional latency until you put ALSA on top of it. There are libraries which can make ALSA run VSTs at half the latencies as ASIO or Core Audio. That is essentially what the Muse Receptor box is/does.
I use Ubuntu on all my machines except for one Windows box which runs Scope, one VM (sitting on top of Ubuntu) which runs my Blackberry server for Domino, and an OSX VM (again, sitting on top of Ubuntu) that I use for Safari testing.
Linux is not a panacea, but I simply could not afford to run my web development / computer consulting business using either Mac OR PC. In addition to the costs of the operating system, applications, and support contracts / seat licenses, there is the time required to maintain these systems and the costs that are incurred every year or so with forced upgrades. I'm just as productive with Inkscape and Gimp as I am with Photoshop, and I don't have to steal or pay out of pocket every time they decide to release new features or fixes.
Mac is better by far in terms of stability and support, and still eclipses Linux in usability (though not by much anymore now that Compiz Fusion is maturing), but Vista is a steaming turd in comparison to the latest Ubuntu and OSX releases, be it in speed, stability, security, or elegance. I can understand why Linux might not be suitable for many people in it's current state, but given how hard it was to use four years ago and how easy to use it is now (both my parents use Ubuntu now), in a few years time, I don't think Microsoft will be a major player at all. They simply refuse to make decisions that make the market happy, and they are holding up the game.
You'll note that their five year old OS is catching up to Vista in terms of OEM sales. And that's AFTER everyone switched ALL bundled OSes to Vista. No one wants it. People can't find their settings, they don't want to be asked for permission to do every last thing, and those questions don't make the OS any safer and people know it. On top of that, all the beta testers of Vista SP1 have concluded that none of the major speed, stability, and security issues will be addressed by the upcoming service pack. Whereas Linux bugs get patched MUCH more quickly.
I use OSX on a regular basis, and as good as it is, it is still an expensive closed box. Perhaps not as expensive as it used to be, but not exactly cheap either. If you want to do anything interesting, you still have to play ball with the way Steve Jobs wants the Mac to run. While in most use cases, that does not poison the waters, it does slow progress overall for computing. Were it not for the fact that OSX was the primary alternative to Windows, the computing landscape would not have moved forward at all, but Mac is basically a Streamlined UNIX box that you can't take off the rails.
But Linux could be used to make incredible specialized devices which allow tremendous flexibility, on-stage stability, and low cost for hardware developers. Once the market is built, you'll see Ableton move to Linux, as they have already expressed interest from a technology standpoint. Other will follow. Someone just needs to be a leader for it to start.
My $.10
Sam
they don't want it, they don't need it - so they'd probably hate it 
noone questions that Linux is a good solution to built your 'on-the-spot-focussed-server'
but it's also a matter of fact that the majority of consumer PCs is operated by technically not very experienced users... and some groups, like musos with a DAW just don't want to deal with tech stuff - for obvious reasons.
Linux is advertized as a user OS to save us all from Apple or M$, you get that impression on your local newsstand as well as on internet pages
and that's just rubbish
it took Apple about 3 or 4 years to hide BSD completely behind a GUI
the SUSE folks (they are an 'almost local' company so I followed that a bit) aren't even able to get an installer of similiar quality up and running in 20(!) years
pardon me - an installer, not a complete OS...
that is a matter of fact - it doesn't mean that the OS itself is bad - it just means that the people who 'package' it and those who are leading developement of the user interface aspects obviously do a bad job.
I have called that (provocatively) 2nd class programming
in industry, you're rigidly sorted out when you don't match job demands
in Open Source and community projects you may find your playground, though
again that does not mean Open Source is bad in itself and all over the place
but it may explain why everything looks like a copy of something already existing and why still references to techie parts of the OS bother 'users' who'd prefer to not see them at all.
if it's possible to test a distribution from a 'life-CD' then wtf isn't it possible to copy the bloody thing to my harddisk with one single command ???
cheers, Tom
ps to add something positive to the OS
when I wanted to try out WINE under Linux or FreeBSD I quickly figured out that the config would cost me several hours - so I ordered a 'commercial' implementation with GUI control and the thing was up in 10 minutes. Bingo.
Those folks at Codeweavers don't add any code (afaik) to the existing WINE implementation - they just sort out the mess
noone questions that Linux is a good solution to built your 'on-the-spot-focussed-server'
but it's also a matter of fact that the majority of consumer PCs is operated by technically not very experienced users... and some groups, like musos with a DAW just don't want to deal with tech stuff - for obvious reasons.
Linux is advertized as a user OS to save us all from Apple or M$, you get that impression on your local newsstand as well as on internet pages
and that's just rubbish
it took Apple about 3 or 4 years to hide BSD completely behind a GUI
the SUSE folks (they are an 'almost local' company so I followed that a bit) aren't even able to get an installer of similiar quality up and running in 20(!) years
pardon me - an installer, not a complete OS...
that is a matter of fact - it doesn't mean that the OS itself is bad - it just means that the people who 'package' it and those who are leading developement of the user interface aspects obviously do a bad job.
I have called that (provocatively) 2nd class programming
in industry, you're rigidly sorted out when you don't match job demands
in Open Source and community projects you may find your playground, though
again that does not mean Open Source is bad in itself and all over the place
but it may explain why everything looks like a copy of something already existing and why still references to techie parts of the OS bother 'users' who'd prefer to not see them at all.
if it's possible to test a distribution from a 'life-CD' then wtf isn't it possible to copy the bloody thing to my harddisk with one single command ???
cheers, Tom
ps to add something positive to the OS
when I wanted to try out WINE under Linux or FreeBSD I quickly figured out that the config would cost me several hours - so I ordered a 'commercial' implementation with GUI control and the thing was up in 10 minutes. Bingo.
Those folks at Codeweavers don't add any code (afaik) to the existing WINE implementation - they just sort out the mess
I tried Unbuntu and I can say it is very easy to use and functional. I have installed it on several computers. The only problem is that my favorite applications such as the SFP and Cubase won't run on it and a few others as well. For the average user who just who wants to surf the internet, send emails and write simple documents, it should be perfect but sadly, most people have never even heard of Ubuntu. Computer companies should push it more. One reason they don't is that they want to use the OS as a tool to sell other programs and install spyware. When you buy a computer, there are many things installed on it which are only there as "demos" or ads for other products. These companies are paying to have their software on the computer. It's like big corporations making donations to the government in order to assure that consumers get a raw deal. Ever try to delete the demos and spyware on a new computer? It takes a long time. They often won't give you a Microsoft installation disk without the spyware on it. It's clear that the public can be tricked or "educated" into buying anything. Here we elected George Bush as our leader twice in a row. That is why everyone wants Microsoft or Apple. It's basically human stupidity and corporate greed.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
I won't start venting full throttle, but frankly, Ubuntu (the whole series) is very close to passing the very bottom line of an acceptable "normal" OS. Still, problems remain that are inherently built into linux, like having to chmod stuff, or having to sudo things in the command line etc. That sort of stuff is so embedded into linux, that most linux users do it by second nature, and it's exactly what other users won't want to do. Bottom line is, linux as a whole is still too dependent on command line operations. I don't mind, but command line kills casual users. It's just bad interface design. (actually NO interface)
Not to mention the lack of proper documentation for a lot of the applications. If it's not written, what's the user supposed to do? Download the source?
So, like braincell says, if the task is limited to e-mail, internet, itunes, file sharing, etc. Those basic grounds are covered quite well. (although you have to manually install mp3 codec) The package manager has become quite smart, and overall it's not quite as bad. Just overall, there's till too much undocumented mystery where you'd only find answers if you search in forums.
Not to mention the lack of proper documentation for a lot of the applications. If it's not written, what's the user supposed to do? Download the source?
So, like braincell says, if the task is limited to e-mail, internet, itunes, file sharing, etc. Those basic grounds are covered quite well. (although you have to manually install mp3 codec) The package manager has become quite smart, and overall it's not quite as bad. Just overall, there's till too much undocumented mystery where you'd only find answers if you search in forums.
I think you are used to the hassle that comes with Windows and Mac. It's not like you don't have to install everything, including codecs and the like for Windows... In fact, I think setting up windows is MORE of a pain in the ass, and by and large, the open-source applications are BETTER. Not in the audio/video realm, obviously, but for browsing, word-processing, etc.
Anyway... use what you want. I'm just saying, if a commercial audio or video company wanted to make a video rendering, or say a 2U stand-alone creamware audio box, Linux would be the platform to do it on.
Also, see here: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... p-creature
It may not be prime-time for the majority of the world, but as a platform, it's made more progress in less time than OSX or Windows combined. Just wait a year... we may be having a much different conversation.
Anyway... use what you want. I'm just saying, if a commercial audio or video company wanted to make a video rendering, or say a 2U stand-alone creamware audio box, Linux would be the platform to do it on.
Also, see here: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... p-creature
It may not be prime-time for the majority of the world, but as a platform, it's made more progress in less time than OSX or Windows combined. Just wait a year... we may be having a much different conversation.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
yeah, I guess it boils down to this. For any computing platform, the path most travelled is going to have the most documentation, available apps, support, user community, etc. For m$ and apple, fortunately they've been around long enough to have addressed most of the major areas, perhaps it's only a matter of time before linux has also been around long enough.
I think once the basic areas are covered, (basic desktop apps, hardware support, basic usability) then the remaining more specialized areas will follow. I think a lot will change once compiz fully takes off.
I think once the basic areas are covered, (basic desktop apps, hardware support, basic usability) then the remaining more specialized areas will follow. I think a lot will change once compiz fully takes off.
I just saw a good friend who is a full time computer repair person and he likes Vista. The Windows expert Paul Thurrott at http://www.winsupersite.com/ also said he likes it for a myriad of reasons.
So far everyone that tells me that Vista is bad, doesn't actually use Vista so I am skeptical about their claims. I know that Windows 98 was better than Windows 95 and Windows XP was better than 98 (Windows Millenium was a mistake in my opinion). I don't use Vista yet but I'm sure by the time I do use it, it will be better and by then we won't be having this argument.
So far everyone that tells me that Vista is bad, doesn't actually use Vista so I am skeptical about their claims. I know that Windows 98 was better than Windows 95 and Windows XP was better than 98 (Windows Millenium was a mistake in my opinion). I don't use Vista yet but I'm sure by the time I do use it, it will be better and by then we won't be having this argument.
try vista business edition 64 bit with scope and see for yourself
In my opinion vista is exactly an os version like me. The follow-up version will be
something different and introducing a new file system. But anway. If you running an office or gambling machine stay with vista those days.
But why should that be discussed in a linux thread?
In my opinion vista is exactly an os version like me. The follow-up version will be
something different and introducing a new file system. But anway. If you running an office or gambling machine stay with vista those days.
But why should that be discussed in a linux thread?
"Heaven is there where hell is and heaven is not on earth!"
The performance difference between Xp32bit and even Vista32bit is worse than the performance difference was for an average machine was in the move from Win98/ME to WinXP. The differences in Ram usage are similar (need about 2x the ram) but considering that Vista is an extension of the NT OS and not a move from a bunch of 16bit files loaded on DOS to a true 32bit app...
Each version of NT brought with it increased base ram usage. Here's my experiences with the various versions of WinNT on a fully tweaked system (tweaked to MY usages):
NT 3.51 typically used about 54-58Mb of ram or so on my configurations back then. Then NT4 used about 80Mb, increasing up to about 120Mb over the lifetime that i used it (these are tweaked systems with some disabled services and various background apps loaded: wacom driver, soundcards etc). Win2k started around 130Mb of base ram on boot, and by the end of my usage of it it was hovering around 160Mb or ram usage or so on boot. WInXp used about 200Mb on boot back when I started using it (after tweaking again) and currently I can boot into a base usage of 236Mb. After opening and closing a few of my regular apps it hovers around 260Mb. This includes Nod32 (antivirus), both my RME tasktray apps, the Kxdriver app (for my sblive normal windows stuff), adobe's drm crap, a gamma loader for my color correction in graphics apps (not the adobe one but a proper one), the wacom tablet driver, and the driver for my logitech mouse (needed for the extra buttons to work properly). As I sit here with several work apps open in WinXP (plus firefox, irc and even task manager) I've still only got 38 processes going.
Vista 32bit *after tweaking* was still using close to 700Mb ram (it used 950Mb ram on boot after installing the necessary drivers etc) and had nearly 200 processes running. Aside from certain issues with immature drivers, I definately noticed a marked decrease in the level of interactivity in the User interface when using applications that use cpu heavily. Benchmarks tend to run slower, and where Vista isn't outright interfering with performance (as the recent issues with copying files across gigabit while playing mp3's illustrated) there's still additional background processes using cpu that wouldn't be present on Xp.
So for an average desktop user who might play some movies and games, once they've added enough ram and perhaps a cpu and graphics card update, Vista will give a decent level of performance. In professional applications the decrease in performance and increase in problems isn't worth it until you start hitting real limitations in Xp. For the most part that's entirely about using more than 3Gb am atm, there are still very few applications or drivers being released as Vista *only*.
Personally I see Vista as the ME of the NT OS's. Something you can live with and get used to, but the problems it has are related to more than just a few UI changes.
Each version of NT brought with it increased base ram usage. Here's my experiences with the various versions of WinNT on a fully tweaked system (tweaked to MY usages):
NT 3.51 typically used about 54-58Mb of ram or so on my configurations back then. Then NT4 used about 80Mb, increasing up to about 120Mb over the lifetime that i used it (these are tweaked systems with some disabled services and various background apps loaded: wacom driver, soundcards etc). Win2k started around 130Mb of base ram on boot, and by the end of my usage of it it was hovering around 160Mb or ram usage or so on boot. WInXp used about 200Mb on boot back when I started using it (after tweaking again) and currently I can boot into a base usage of 236Mb. After opening and closing a few of my regular apps it hovers around 260Mb. This includes Nod32 (antivirus), both my RME tasktray apps, the Kxdriver app (for my sblive normal windows stuff), adobe's drm crap, a gamma loader for my color correction in graphics apps (not the adobe one but a proper one), the wacom tablet driver, and the driver for my logitech mouse (needed for the extra buttons to work properly). As I sit here with several work apps open in WinXP (plus firefox, irc and even task manager) I've still only got 38 processes going.
Vista 32bit *after tweaking* was still using close to 700Mb ram (it used 950Mb ram on boot after installing the necessary drivers etc) and had nearly 200 processes running. Aside from certain issues with immature drivers, I definately noticed a marked decrease in the level of interactivity in the User interface when using applications that use cpu heavily. Benchmarks tend to run slower, and where Vista isn't outright interfering with performance (as the recent issues with copying files across gigabit while playing mp3's illustrated) there's still additional background processes using cpu that wouldn't be present on Xp.
So for an average desktop user who might play some movies and games, once they've added enough ram and perhaps a cpu and graphics card update, Vista will give a decent level of performance. In professional applications the decrease in performance and increase in problems isn't worth it until you start hitting real limitations in Xp. For the most part that's entirely about using more than 3Gb am atm, there are still very few applications or drivers being released as Vista *only*.
Personally I see Vista as the ME of the NT OS's. Something you can live with and get used to, but the problems it has are related to more than just a few UI changes.
It's not just the DRM features, they're not always in play and far from the central issue (although they're an issue that's been popularized). They changed massive portions of the codebase in the last year and a half of development because they couldn't get the 'beyond NT' tech ready in time to make the bean-counters happy.
For a bit of a retrospective, Microsoft started working on NT at pretty much the same time as the 16bit windows (around the time of windows 2.0 iirc), it just wasn't ready for general use in *servers and workstations* for a few years, and not ready for mainstream until what, 13 years later or so? Then MS decides to try to replicate that level of effort in a 'newer better more secure 64bit OS' in less than 2 years. In a nutshell that's why Vista wound up less than stellar, and is so far shaping up to be the ME for this decade.
I'm not anti-MS or anti-Vista by any means, but creating a quality operating system is an engineering/programming task. Marketing it and making it profitable are for management and marketing. Letting management and marketing drive things has never yielded good results
For a bit of a retrospective, Microsoft started working on NT at pretty much the same time as the 16bit windows (around the time of windows 2.0 iirc), it just wasn't ready for general use in *servers and workstations* for a few years, and not ready for mainstream until what, 13 years later or so? Then MS decides to try to replicate that level of effort in a 'newer better more secure 64bit OS' in less than 2 years. In a nutshell that's why Vista wound up less than stellar, and is so far shaping up to be the ME for this decade.
I'm not anti-MS or anti-Vista by any means, but creating a quality operating system is an engineering/programming task. Marketing it and making it profitable are for management and marketing. Letting management and marketing drive things has never yielded good results