What would make you switch to Linux?

[robotmonkey]

it's simples - Linux just is much more hassle than Windows.

I'm also in the camp who uses/administers Linux in the workplace but there's just no way I would move my DAW over Linux. Some of the reasons:
Lack of quality software.
Still a lot more hassle than Windows in day to day usage. Linux has improved but there is still a lot of messing around in config files, CLI, things not working smoothly and so on.
Lack of proper hardware support. That Linux has great hardware support is just not true. At best you get a very generic drivers for most stuff that do not make full use of hardware potential.
Did I say lack of professional quality software?
As far as audio is concerned it would be just masochist as getting it all working is just painful.
The UI is still a big mess and often down right ugly, no matter what window manager you use.

[robotmonkey]

I wonder how much the percentage of IE users is inflated because of corporate mandates to use IE. Most of the large corporations I've worked for have used IE and still use IE. I think most of the Finance world uses IE still based on what I have seen.

Not sure if there are numbers for just the home market, but I'll bet IE is a tiny percentage.

IE market share is about 60% overall. And yes, there's a lot of corporate usage for a very simple reason that you can control it down to very minute details through group policy management tools.

[Arglebargle]

Linux actually saved my ass big time when I needed to repartition my DAW drive in a particular way, and nothing else was doing the trick. so I am not opposed to using it when it can help. for most things though I feel it's a day late and a dollar short.

[glokraw]

Essentially this is like a Sonar vs Reaper argument?

When it comes down to using windows vsts in linux, I have not
heard of another big-name daw that works as easily in linux,
so, yes, and it would be 'reaper Vs all comers'.
I use occasionally use Cantabile 1.2, or the windows version of EnergyXT,
if some plugin doesn't scan right in reaper, a rare occurence.

I should mention that a great amount of work has been done
by the KX Studio developer, to produce a working multi-format plugin host,
as well as session management, and probably several other
valuable functions, but I lack the time to test them, and other
more mainstream linux users seem quite pleased with the ongoing results.

A dedicated forum is here, if inclined to investigate:

http://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewforum.php?f=47

There are also reports of success with FLS, Reason, MU Lab, and some others,
none of which I own, or have time to dabble with.
The Linux Bitwig is great fun, since some power users
uncovered it's internal i/o ports, for general consumption.
I love the the fx section for guitars, it would make a nice secondary product!
Cheers

[glokraw]

Linux actually saved my ass big time when I needed to repartition my DAW drive in a particular way, and nothing else was doing the trick. so I am not opposed to using it when it can help. for most things though I feel it's a day late and a dollar short.

I love the pclinuxos gui for partitioning, to me, it's the best
on any platform, and some of those standard with the big distros
are pretty nice too.

It's actually only 22 hours late, and $.91 cents short, the Fat Lady has yet to sing!
Linux audio is improving, and as the global economy collapses,
fewer people will be able/willing to pay the corporate OS overheads.
Look at the sad new 'i3 surface', they're already prepping for an ever lower
applied IQ, among the lowest common denominator emerging from grade schools.
Cheers

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Not being able to think of a single reason why i would, is what stops me

[glokraw]

it's simples - Linux just is much more hassle than Windows.

I'm also in the camp who uses/administers Linux in the workplace but there's just no way I would move my DAW over Linux. Some of the reasons:
Lack of quality software.
Still a lot more hassle than Windows in day to day usage. Linux has improved but there is still a lot of messing around in config files, CLI, things not working smoothly and so on.
Lack of proper hardware support. That Linux has great hardware support is just not true. At best you get a very generic drivers for most stuff that do not make full use of hardware potential.
Did I say lack of professional quality software?
As far as audio is concerned it would be just masochist as getting it all working is just painful.
The UI is still a big mess and often down right ugly, no matter what window manager you use.

Of course it's 'a hassle' to customize and beautify a gui,
same for a car, a room, an antique, or a song. Effort is required,
and is rewarded. Config files are for system tuning
and choosing options, not for 'messing around with'.
There is 'enough' hardware support,
but new linux users typically choose to dive in with what they own,
and quickly crash&burn, then flame linux for years to come,
because they didn't do any research. Sadly, this blind leep
has been encouraged by some linux fanbois, promising valhalla,
and then too lazy to offer significant help, when the hapless
have failed at the first attempt.

As mentioned earlier, there is a divide between wealthy people
who can purchase, or easily save up for, expensive software/gear,
and those for whom that may never happen, or at least take many years
and sacrifices. I listed a very strong set of linux software,
that brings great creative potential, and wonderful sound,
without the commercial price. So linux will meet a large need,
whatever it's current state. It doesn't have to be for everyone,
but it should not be ridiculed just because some basic knowledge
is required, beyond the mouse and icon. The toolbox is open,
powerful, and ready for those willing to use it.
Cheers

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

As mentioned earlier, there is a divide between wealthy people
who can purchase, or easily save up for, expensive software/gear,
and those for whom that may never happen, or at least take many years
and sacrifices. I listed a very strong set of linux software,
that brings great creative potential, and wonderful sound,
without the commercial price. So linux will meet a large need,
whatever it's current state. It doesn't have to be for everyone,
but it should not be ridiculed just because some basic knowledge
is required, beyond the mouse and icon. The toolbox is open,
powerful, and ready for those willing to use it.
Cheers

really ?? i see the divide (and pretty sure it is echoed throughout this thread), being between those who want to tinker with their os's, and those who want to not have to think about any of that.

wealth has nothing to do with it. any off-the-shelf computer will have an os already installed, and a computer can be had for very cheap these days. i would also bet that the amount of fantastic free windows software (or to be had for the price of a magazine cover dvd), equals or (more likely) far eclipses the potential of linux apps you might have in tow.

if linux works for you, that's all good. just understand that many users would rather have to think about the os part of the equation as little as possible; the os just being an invisible bridge between intent and outcome

[glokraw]

Not being able to think of a single reason why i would, is what stops me

This is it, in a nutshell. The OP's question, 'What stops you switching to Linux?'
implies an either/or dilemma, which for most people here, does not exist.
If the question were 'What stops you switching to a Mac?'
or posed on a Mac forum, as 'What stops you switching to Windows?',
you could give the same answer. The same holds true for
'What stops you switching to Omnisphere?' or
'What stops you switching to a Virus or Motif?'

But many of us are blessed with the wealth and ability to have several
computers or hardrives, that can cover the range of operating systems,
including those embedded in fine hardware keyboards,
some of which are linux based.

So, instead of the truly valuable, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it',
we at least have the option to ponder the possibilities,
as time and resource allows.
Cheers

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Not being able to think of a single reason why i would, is what stops me

This is it, in a nutshell. The OP's question, 'What stops you switching to Linux?'
implies an either/or dilemma, which for most people here, does not exist.
If the question were 'What stops you switching to a Mac?'
or posed on a Mac forum, as 'What stops you switching to Windows?',
you could give the same answer. The same holds true for
'What stops you switching to Omnisphere?' or
'What stops you switching to a Virus or Motif?'

But many of us are blessed with the wealth and ability to have several
computers or hardrives, that can cover the range of operating systems,
including those embedded in fine hardware keyboards,
some of which are linux based.



So, instead of the truly valuable, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it',
we at least have the option to ponder the possibilities,
as time and resource allows.
Cheers

Actually, i did switch to mac, from windows, for some very clear reasons. I can also make a good case for running windows in bootcamp. But, as i said, i can think of no reasons why i would install linux. So, not the same argument

[glokraw]

really ?? i see the divide (and pretty sure it is echoed throughout this thread), being between those who want to tinker with their os's, and those who want to not have to think about any of that.

wealth has nothing to do with it.

Thats only true for the wealthy.
perhaps there are no poor people in your city/continent?

There is a difference between 'tinkering' and optimizing/configuring.
It is true that the wealthy i7-32gig-ram crowd, and the corporate drones
placed at what amounts to a terminal, need not modify things very much,
but there are still a lot of people living in other continents,
whose first computer would be a Goodwill/Salvation Army write-off
in the U.S. and they will be happy to have it, and be able to get
some good use from linux software, should they choose to.

Here is an example of someone buying bulk 'reject electronics',
then repairing and reselling in a non i-7-32gig-ram stronghold:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... s/2880359/

[glokraw]

Not being able to think of a single reason why i would, is what stops me

This is it, in a nutshell. The OP's question, 'What stops you switching to Linux?'
implies an either/or dilemma, which for most people here, does not exist.
If the question were 'What stops you switching to a Mac?'
or posed on a Mac forum, as 'What stops you switching to Windows?',
you could give the same answer. The same holds true for
'What stops you switching to Omnisphere?' or
'What stops you switching to a Virus or Motif?'

But many of us are blessed with the wealth and ability to have several
computers or hardrives, that can cover the range of operating systems,
including those embedded in fine hardware keyboards,
some of which are linux based.



So, instead of the truly valuable, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it',
we at least have the option to ponder the possibilities,
as time and resource allows.
Cheers

Actually, i did switch to mac, from windows, for some very clear reasons. I can also make a good case for running windows in bootcamp. But, as i said, i can think of no reasons why i would install linux. So, not the same argument

If you no longer use any windows products, then windows products
proved as useful for you as a linux would be. I always wonder about that
compulsion to switch. It's not like the i7 crowd can only afford tiny desks.

I'm not suggesting anyone dump mac or windows for linux.
Or dump windows for mac, or software for hardware.
If someone asks about linux, I usually suggest using an external usb drive,
live cd/dvd, or wubi type setup, and move on from there.

[Kevin Deas]

Mo' OS's Mo' problems.......

[ghettosynth]

As mentioned earlier, there is a divide between wealthy people
who can purchase, or easily save up for, expensive software/gear,
and those for whom that may never happen, or at least take many years
and sacrifices. I listed a very strong set of linux software,
that brings great creative potential, and wonderful sound,
without the commercial price. So linux will meet a large need,
whatever it's current state. It doesn't have to be for everyone,
but it should not be ridiculed just because some basic knowledge
is required, beyond the mouse and icon. The toolbox is open,
powerful, and ready for those willing to use it.
Cheers

really ?? i see the divide (and pretty sure it is echoed throughout this thread), being between those who want to tinker with their os's, and those who want to not have to think about any of that.

wealth has nothing to do with it. any off-the-shelf computer will have an os already installed, and a computer can be had for very cheap these days. i would also bet that the amount of fantastic free windows software (or to be had for the price of a magazine cover dvd), equals or (more likely) far eclipses the potential of linux apps you might have in tow.

Absolutely. Old laptops with a running copy of windows can be had for dirt cheap all day long. Even old macs aren't that expensive, I wish they were, I could get something out of mine. Back in the G3 days, it was true that a low end system would feel snappier on Linux than OS/X, but I'm not convinced that's true any more for anything that you will find used and still working reliably.

Ok, but brand new?

Fry's has a simple celeron quad core machine for $298 on sale right now.

http://www.frys.com/product/8084644?sit ... ate:060614

CPU Boss says that compares fairly well with the old core 2 duo 6400, which I have in an old laptop so I have a good sense of how well it works for audio.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Duo ... eron-N2920

I've used the old core 2 machine as my couch studio for quite a while before I picked up a macbook. It runs reaper just fine and doesn't struggle at all with the majority of software that I use. I wouldn't try to run Diva or Ace on it and even though I had Reaktor installed on it at one point, I wouldn't bother if it were my main music machine.

You could easily run most of the CM-Studio with this along with Reaper and produce a lot of music. It's certainly going to be far more powerful than the average 10 year old machine and people were producing music on machines long before core 2 came out.

Trying to sell Linux as the cheap alternative often just leads to disappointment and can negatively contribute to Linux's image problem. Linux is the optimum solution in many cases, but saving a few bucks for the (consumer) end user, in general, isn't one of them. For me, in fact, Linux is installed on my fastest and most powerful machine. I'm not using it because it's saving me money, I'm using it because there is no better solution for what it does.

[EnGee]

really ?? i see the divide (and pretty sure it is echoed throughout this thread), being between those who want to tinker with their os's, and those who want to not have to think about any of that.

wealth has nothing to do with it.

Thats only true for the wealthy.
perhaps there are no poor people in your city/continent?

There is a difference between 'tinkering' and optimizing/configuring.
It is true that the wealthy i7-32gig-ram crowd, and the corporate drones
placed at what amounts to a terminal, need not modify things very much,
but there are still a lot of people living in other continents,
whose first computer would be a Goodwill/Salvation Army write-off
in the U.S. and they will be happy to have it, and be able to get
some good use from linux software, should they choose to.

Here is an example of someone buying bulk 'reject electronics',
then repairing and reselling in a non i-7-32gig-ram stronghold:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... s/2880359/

Strange logic for me!

I have i7 laptop and i5 desktop but my balance in the bank (as for today) is $2.08 , so am I a wealthy person? Oh I did a job for $60 yesterday, but the payment will be few days later.

So, Linux is best for PCs under $500? $300? $100? which one is for the poor? Oh, and for old computers (Pentium III or II), are you sure the latest Ubuntu would run with 32MB or 64MB memory?

Three times I advised the customers to install Linux (I did that for them as well). One was 'maniac' with security and thinks that Anti-Virus companies are hacking his PC. I installed Ubuntu to his PC and gave him a small lesson how to operate it. He was/is very happy with it.
Second time, it was a very old PC (actually I found it near the shop, someone didn't want it and put it there). It was old good Compaq with P II desktop case with win95. I put Lubuntu and give it to a poor man with 9 kids. The reason I put linux because he wanted youtube.
The third time was because the client keep coming back to me because of viruses. He watches a lot of porno and always visiting not so trusty sites. With linux, he was happy and never came back again!

There are some other situation when I see linux to be a good choice. For example, 10 PCs donated to one non-profit organization but without the software (rare!). In that case I would install linux (doing this work as a volunteer of course!).

I don't really like it when people 'make' it like Linux is the new prophet for the poor and attacking all the existing system (political/financial and everything else!). Please stop this religious point of view. It is just an OS. Personally, I prefer a hackintosh system because more hardware are supported, and it is Unix/BSD/NestStep based (so, not much difference in terminal commands really).

I would prefer it if Ubuntu was a commercial product (the desktop edition) and got support from commercial hardware and software companies. At that time it would be a good alternative between Windows and OS X. But the 'freedom' turned against it. Few companies are considering the support for linux (don't tell me it is improving! For about 20 years it is still improving?! Not ready yet?!).

In short, for me, when Linux reaches the same support in software and hardware like Windows/OS X, that time I might give it a try. For now, it is just an experimental OS (for music production, graphic design and games).