i do completely agree about the abuse of the patent system with regards to software, read some articles on that fairly recently & It could have serious consequences & is indeed a very hypocrtical move especially on ms's part.
[edit] but I reckon that's another discussion really [/edit]
Studio....to go Linux OS sequencer
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Hey now we might be getting somewhere. NOWHERE did I say that Windows is superior to Linux or anything else. I just said that the things you were touting as the reasons Linux is better were either totally false or so narrowly focused as to not be a real comparison.Radek wrote: Corporate entities are just like a political ones. Full of crap and here are many things with microsoft what are atleast questionable. Unices predates any of BGates's things by far and any point of time technically ms's oses were inferior when compared to a competition. If you are saying otherwise then you have a very low standards indeed. I don't how anyone could prefer an Amiga's Workbench against Win3.x for example. Of course ms prevailed but it wasn't on technical merits alone.
Do know how superior was an Digital's Alpha at the same time compared to Intel's best Pentium. It wasn't even funny and microsoft's success lies in similiar principlies. Of course for you all of this is an alright thing, fair enough.
Someone here at KVR said one wise sentence:
"If you are dancing with devil, you had to pay a fiddler". Good luck then.
I personally owned an Amiga 1000 and 3000. It was by far the best public OS ever. Also, I worked on several systems that ran on Alpha backplanes. Here is the problem. Both of those products were destroyed by their own companies. Nothing Bill Gates did put them under.
Amiga tried to sell themselves as a crappy, over-priced game console.
Alpha was about 10x the cost for about a 2/1 performance increase. Tack on the maintenance cost and it was only worth the trouble in a few configurations. Few configs = higher cost = dead doggy.
That's simple economics, which is another thing Bill Gates didn't invent.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 3964 posts since 31 Aug, 2003 from In a foreign town, in a foreign land
What were you[1] thinking when you were installing[2] a whole plucking distro? That's insane, inefficient and unnecessary.Hypertone wrote:Imagine if Microsoft came as 4 gig installation with 6 email clients, 5 web browsers and 4 window managers. Everyone would be screaming BLOATWARE!!
You can have full control over your install and keep it lean and mean- just do a Debian net-install or a SUSE ftp-install instead.
Or get Gentoo or some such thing[3].
Ubuntu, incidentally, manages to put a whole distro on a CD, with one window-manager (if you want to install that- you won't find it on my server, for example), one web browser, and one email client. And it's not one of those hardk0re u83r 1337 distros, either.
Groet, Erik
[1] the hypothetical you.
[2] the hypothetical install.
[3] Ha! Ha! just for kicks.
Pop music delenda est.
-
- KVRist
- 378 posts since 11 Mar, 2002 from Victoria BC
Actually I was thinking it would solve the whole dependency problem, but I was wrong.tetraplan wrote:
What were you[1] thinking when you were installing[2] a whole plucking distro? That's insane, inefficient and unnecessary.
.
-
- KVRAF
- 3528 posts since 18 Apr, 2002 from British Columbia, Canada
if you use Debian, Ubuntu, or my favourite, DeMuDi, apt-get makes dependency issues a thing of the past.Hypertone wrote:tetraplan wrote:
Actually I was thinking it would solve the whole dependency problem, but I was wrong.
Even on SuSE, or RedHat / Fedora, you can get apt for RPM, and again dependencies are not an issue.
just fyi
-
- KVRAF
- 4222 posts since 23 Feb, 2004 from Tucson Arizona USA
We got a great deal of value from Alpha and Digital Unix, but it was more due to the fact that several of our developers were people who had worked on Digital Unix before coming to work for us. I really learned a whole lot, and it was quite cool to have DU source code, a backchannel to support, and custom OS extensions and so forth. I miss it, a lot.SJ_Digriz wrote: Alpha was about 10x the cost for about a 2/1 performance increase. Tack on the maintenance cost and it was only worth the trouble in a few configurations. Few configs = higher cost = dead doggy.
-
- KVRAF
- 25039 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
yeah - and that's an easy thing to do...tetraplan wrote: You can have full control over your install and keep it lean and mean- just do a Debian net-install or a SUSE ftp-install instead.
Or get Gentoo or some such thing[3].
no thanks, I'll stay with my Redmond-crap for now...
-
- KVRian
- 1008 posts since 9 Aug, 2004 from helsinki rock city
well, my linux installs have been much easier than the microsoft ones i've done .. if you select the right cd image you don't have to do a thing! just insert the cd and in a few minutes you have a working linux installation complete with networking and whatnot.
what windows distro allows that? ;) (ok i know you can *make* such a cd with windows too, but those don't come ready, and if they do, they're only for some specific hardware. and in any case you don't really want to use them, do you?-))
for the most part you don't even have to install any drivers. most of the drivers you need are either compiled into the kernel and or are available as modules and loaded automatically whenever pnp detects it.
when your system is installed and you want almost any program at all you just tell the packet manager like so:
apt-get install gimp
and the packet manager automagically downloads it and installs it with all the dependencies. you don't have to do ANYTHING except give that one command and after it's downloaded and installed, it's 100% ready to just fire up and start using!
this applies of course also to x, the window managers, the desktop managers, and even the kernels!
no windows os has so far been this easy and fast to install. no windows os has so far been this easy and fast to install new software to.
......
i'm not saying there are no downsides. i'm just saying that if you think its hard to install linux, you're terribly wrong. and installing new software just couldn't be easyer!
so if you want to make up excuses why not to start using linux, try to come up with some that actually have something to do with reality and your opinions and decisions are much easyer to understand and respect ;)
just a few examples from the dark side:
if the hardware isn't automatically detected and supported you may have to manually load a module. then all you have to do is f ex "modprobe 3c509" for a 3com 509 network card. and then it works!
BUT
if you have more exotic or really new hardware, it will probably take longer to install on linux than on windows.
of some weird reason all hardware manuafacturers don't make linux drivers for their stuff. luckily that's changing all the time. also there are more generic dirvers /do/ that work. furthermore, people that make drivers for linux become faster all the time
then again, there are hardware that you can have a hard time finding "the proper" (or any at all) drivers for in windows. many of these, mostly old, hardware often work with some of the more generic drivers on linux really well.
also, i must confess, that mostly i've installed linux as servers. that's probably why the installs have been faster and easyer than the ones i've done on windows machines. that means that i haven't had to separately install really any other hardware than some network cards.
i'm not saying that linux is hopeless as a desktop. i'm not saying even that it's hard to get virtually any hardware to work on linux fairly easily (including gfx cards). what can cause trouble is that if you want to explore all the potentiality on your exotic hardware. linux sure allows you to explore /more/ than windows, but most linux distros don't (at least not a couple of years ago did) give you an easy resolution switch or a simple box to select your screen refresh rate in, both filled with the right values and both straigth out-of-the-box and ready to use.
what am i saying?
to conclude:
most things that you do in linux REALLY ARE /much/ faster and easyer than in windows. but when you come across one of those things that ARE NOT, they mostly require a different kind of knowledge of what to do than the same task on a windows system. sometimes you even end up fighting with the os up to a point when you start longing back to windows and the ah-so-easy yes-ok-ok-ok-yes-ok -installations (as i once had a long time ago with a specific video player and some specific codecs), but then you remember you've had your share of problems on a windows system. at least linux gives you the control and the knowledge of EXACTLY what is going on.
troubleshooting a windows system seems like doing the tasks blindfolded, while on linux it feels like wearing x-ray glasses.
and this isn't only positive. x-ray glasses are bad if you are only trying to read a magazine. . you can have too much control and information and choises. that's what scares most people away. linux has gone a long way from the time when it bugged the user all the time with questions and info that wasn't necessary, but it can still do better.
at least in debian you can choose the level of importance of things it will bother you with :D
mostly i myself like linux because i can tweak it any way i like.
nowdays you can tweak windows pretty much, too, but almost every time i've made the elaborate (UI) tweaks, it's taken me so long that the system is ready for a re-install. then i have to start all over again.
that is something you NEVER have to do with linux. (re-install, that is) because you have the power to fix any problem. also, the os doesn't come up with problems automatically with age or use as windows does. it just does exactly what you tell it to do and NOTHING else.
that's what i like about it.
both at home and at work i have both linux and windows systems running 24/7 and i'm just so fed up with the windows systems getting slower with time and getting these mysterious faults that in the end only re-installs can fix.
for example at home i have to re-install my xp the second time this year now because all of a sudden energyxt keeps crashing on my system no matter what i do. seems only a re-install will fix it.
I'M FED UP WITH RE-INSTALLS to make it clear ;)
i use windows at home only because you have a much larger choise of audio software on it. and it's the ONLY reason even though i sit virtually 24/365 at a computer and do a great variety of stuff with them.
plus i'm only a part-time nerd plus i'm lazy plus want my computer not to give me the shit people are afraid of linux for ... mostly they're wrong.
what windows distro allows that? ;) (ok i know you can *make* such a cd with windows too, but those don't come ready, and if they do, they're only for some specific hardware. and in any case you don't really want to use them, do you?-))
for the most part you don't even have to install any drivers. most of the drivers you need are either compiled into the kernel and or are available as modules and loaded automatically whenever pnp detects it.
when your system is installed and you want almost any program at all you just tell the packet manager like so:
apt-get install gimp
and the packet manager automagically downloads it and installs it with all the dependencies. you don't have to do ANYTHING except give that one command and after it's downloaded and installed, it's 100% ready to just fire up and start using!
this applies of course also to x, the window managers, the desktop managers, and even the kernels!
no windows os has so far been this easy and fast to install. no windows os has so far been this easy and fast to install new software to.
......
i'm not saying there are no downsides. i'm just saying that if you think its hard to install linux, you're terribly wrong. and installing new software just couldn't be easyer!
so if you want to make up excuses why not to start using linux, try to come up with some that actually have something to do with reality and your opinions and decisions are much easyer to understand and respect ;)
just a few examples from the dark side:
if the hardware isn't automatically detected and supported you may have to manually load a module. then all you have to do is f ex "modprobe 3c509" for a 3com 509 network card. and then it works!
BUT
if you have more exotic or really new hardware, it will probably take longer to install on linux than on windows.
of some weird reason all hardware manuafacturers don't make linux drivers for their stuff. luckily that's changing all the time. also there are more generic dirvers /do/ that work. furthermore, people that make drivers for linux become faster all the time
then again, there are hardware that you can have a hard time finding "the proper" (or any at all) drivers for in windows. many of these, mostly old, hardware often work with some of the more generic drivers on linux really well.
also, i must confess, that mostly i've installed linux as servers. that's probably why the installs have been faster and easyer than the ones i've done on windows machines. that means that i haven't had to separately install really any other hardware than some network cards.
i'm not saying that linux is hopeless as a desktop. i'm not saying even that it's hard to get virtually any hardware to work on linux fairly easily (including gfx cards). what can cause trouble is that if you want to explore all the potentiality on your exotic hardware. linux sure allows you to explore /more/ than windows, but most linux distros don't (at least not a couple of years ago did) give you an easy resolution switch or a simple box to select your screen refresh rate in, both filled with the right values and both straigth out-of-the-box and ready to use.
what am i saying?
to conclude:
most things that you do in linux REALLY ARE /much/ faster and easyer than in windows. but when you come across one of those things that ARE NOT, they mostly require a different kind of knowledge of what to do than the same task on a windows system. sometimes you even end up fighting with the os up to a point when you start longing back to windows and the ah-so-easy yes-ok-ok-ok-yes-ok -installations (as i once had a long time ago with a specific video player and some specific codecs), but then you remember you've had your share of problems on a windows system. at least linux gives you the control and the knowledge of EXACTLY what is going on.
troubleshooting a windows system seems like doing the tasks blindfolded, while on linux it feels like wearing x-ray glasses.
and this isn't only positive. x-ray glasses are bad if you are only trying to read a magazine. . you can have too much control and information and choises. that's what scares most people away. linux has gone a long way from the time when it bugged the user all the time with questions and info that wasn't necessary, but it can still do better.
at least in debian you can choose the level of importance of things it will bother you with :D
mostly i myself like linux because i can tweak it any way i like.
nowdays you can tweak windows pretty much, too, but almost every time i've made the elaborate (UI) tweaks, it's taken me so long that the system is ready for a re-install. then i have to start all over again.
that is something you NEVER have to do with linux. (re-install, that is) because you have the power to fix any problem. also, the os doesn't come up with problems automatically with age or use as windows does. it just does exactly what you tell it to do and NOTHING else.
that's what i like about it.
both at home and at work i have both linux and windows systems running 24/7 and i'm just so fed up with the windows systems getting slower with time and getting these mysterious faults that in the end only re-installs can fix.
for example at home i have to re-install my xp the second time this year now because all of a sudden energyxt keeps crashing on my system no matter what i do. seems only a re-install will fix it.
I'M FED UP WITH RE-INSTALLS to make it clear ;)
i use windows at home only because you have a much larger choise of audio software on it. and it's the ONLY reason even though i sit virtually 24/365 at a computer and do a great variety of stuff with them.
plus i'm only a part-time nerd plus i'm lazy plus want my computer not to give me the shit people are afraid of linux for ... mostly they're wrong.
Last edited by moonlite on Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
I definitely think Linux as a Desktop is 'almost there' or depending on your hardware and software needs, 'already there'.
Isn't this thread about Linux as a studio, though? I can barely imagine the headaches....
Greg
Isn't this thread about Linux as a studio, though? I can barely imagine the headaches....
Greg
-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
dont know if it's been mentioned, haven't read the whole thread. But some here will know of Otari, leader in 2"tape machines, designers of the Radar system and now this the DR-100
http://www.otari.com/product/audio/dr_100/index.html
note what it's operating system is...
http://www.otari.com/product/audio/dr_100/index.html
note what it's operating system is...
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Fair enough, but still a red herring.
Give me a linux distribution that installs as easily as the desktop distributions, but allows me to use a robust sequencer (I'll take Tracktion for Linux, but I'm open to other options) with my current hardware setup...
with NO install headache...
And then we can start talking.
I can't speak to Receptor (I have no clue how they pull it off), but the fact that Linux is the OS for a hardware unit like that Otari one doesn't speak much to Linux's capabilities for desktop/PC-based DAW. It's writing files and exchanging commands with a hardware unit, which is something that operates at a much lower level (in a good way, but in a way that makes the comparison apples and oranges) than running a sequencer with VST plug-ins and an audio interface (soundcard) using ASIO (or similar... it doesn't HAVE to be Steinberg as long as it's low latency and works, as far as I'm concerned!) drivers.
Greg
Give me a linux distribution that installs as easily as the desktop distributions, but allows me to use a robust sequencer (I'll take Tracktion for Linux, but I'm open to other options) with my current hardware setup...
with NO install headache...
And then we can start talking.
I can't speak to Receptor (I have no clue how they pull it off), but the fact that Linux is the OS for a hardware unit like that Otari one doesn't speak much to Linux's capabilities for desktop/PC-based DAW. It's writing files and exchanging commands with a hardware unit, which is something that operates at a much lower level (in a good way, but in a way that makes the comparison apples and oranges) than running a sequencer with VST plug-ins and an audio interface (soundcard) using ASIO (or similar... it doesn't HAVE to be Steinberg as long as it's low latency and works, as far as I'm concerned!) drivers.
Greg
-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
yeah but the otari is cool...of course I'll never have one...a little pricey for me
tbh I just wanted the one more post to eclipse 4200
tbh I just wanted the one more post to eclipse 4200
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- 3528 posts since 18 Apr, 2002 from British Columbia, Canada
done!Lunch Money wrote:Fair enough, but still a red herring.
Give me a linux distribution that installs as easily as the desktop distributions, but allows me to use a robust sequencer (I'll take Tracktion for Linux, but I'm open to other options) with my current hardware setup...
with NO install headache...
And then we can start talking.
I can't speak to Receptor (I have no clue how they pull it off), but the fact that Linux is the OS for a hardware unit like that Otari one doesn't speak much to Linux's capabilities for desktop/PC-based DAW. It's writing files and exchanging commands with a hardware unit, which is something that operates at a much lower level (in a good way, but in a way that makes the comparison apples and oranges) than running a sequencer with VST plug-ins and an audio interface (soundcard) using ASIO (or similar... it doesn't HAVE to be Steinberg as long as it's low latency and works, as far as I'm concerned!) drivers.
Greg
www.demudi.org
have fun with your new OS. Let us hear what you come up with
-
- KVRAF
- 25039 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Guess what the Receptor's operating system is...Hink wrote:dont know if it's been mentioned, haven't read the whole thread. But some here will know of Otari, leader in 2"tape machines, designers of the Radar system and now this the DR-100
http://www.otari.com/product/audio/dr_100/index.html
note what it's operating system is...
-
- KVRian
- 762 posts since 2 Sep, 2004 from Poland
Actually there is one but with one big caveat... The Korg's Oasys, no headaches whatsoever except just one...Lunch Money wrote:Fair enough, but still a red herring.
Give me a linux distribution that installs as easily as the desktop distributions, but allows me to use a robust sequencer (I'll take Tracktion for Linux, but I'm open to other options) with my current hardware setup...
with NO install headache...
And we will but not now yet.Lunch Money wrote: And then we can start talking.