T2 Linux

[Improv]

I would not only be happy to pay for Tracktion on Linux, I'd be excited about it and eager to do so.

Amen to that.

Ditto.

If the application software does what you want, buy the OS and hardware that runs it.

[chico.co.uk]

I thought that if you use GPL-ed code with your own commercial app you have to either make your app available under the GPL

Absolutely not.

That's one of the big misconceptions that's been actively promoted by certain opponents of the whole free software culture, and it's completely untrue.

You don't lose your copyright just because you ship your product with a GPL product. If you extend or embed a GPL product, you must obey the license terms of the product you extended or embedded. If you distribute GPL software you must follow the terms. But it doesn't poison your licenses, as some people would like you to believe.

Who said anything about losing copyright?

I was curious how distros work, 'cos I simply didn't know. Karbon cleared it up. I certainly wasn't trying to imply "linux is evil, it's communist, wooo, run away". I'm pro linux. All's well in the world.

It's good news as far as I'm concerned, I'm warming to the idea of a really stripped down dedicated T distro (f**k knows how i'll use my vsts, but that's a problem to resolve when a distro is available). As for whether linux users will pay to get Tracktion or not, well, with the best will in the world, it's not my problem. I would pay for a linux version

Thanks to Father Ham for the link to the article comparing Audacity to Ardour etc, that's answered a lot of questions I had, so cheers for that

[james0tucson]

Who said anything about losing copyright?

That's the only mechanism by which the distribution license works, so it's the only way you can be forced to license your work, is if someone else has an interest in your copyright.

I was curious how distros work, 'cos I simply didn't know. Karbon cleared it up. I certainly wasn't trying to imply "linux is evil, it's communist, wooo, run away". I'm pro linux. All's well in the world.

Neither was I. The GPL is a grant of rights that are reserved under copyright law, at least, it is that in the countries where such laws apply.

[chico.co.uk]

I think i get that, but the (rather nice) bottle of wine i've just been through isn't helping my understanding. Probably i need to go have a proper read of the GPL at some point. But that won't be now. It'll read like it was written in Dutch at the minute

[chico.co.uk]

Ok, quick question - just been reading about the Studio to Go bootable cd, and on the tour page they show them using the B4 vst in Rosegarden. How does that work then? Does that mean windows vsts can be used under linux? Is that done through Wine, or how does that play ball?

[Radek]

Ok, quick question - just been reading about the Studio to Go bootable cd, and on the tour page they show them using the B4 vst in Rosegarden. How does that work then? Does that mean windows vsts can be used under linux? Is that done through Wine, or how does that play ball?

I don't know a strict technical answer but yes. It's possible and it's using wine for some things.

I had some success running energy-xt under Linux and plugins with it.

Imho if pushed hard it could be bearable actually to use Linux as vst host.

[edwardar]

Just another vote for tracktion on Linux. It would really complete my move from XP to ubuntu!

[Karbon L. Forms]

on the subject of GPL and chico's query, a chunk (IE not including anything they didn't HAVE to provide) of the Receptor OS source is available to anyone. Don't know how much they use wine. perhaps they have streamlined it for VST use. unfortunatly the code will no doubt exhibit "security through obscurity" and be undocumented and all comments removed. possibly even obfuscated if they are complete wankers. it's also likely that the VST handler is a complete closed source thing written from the ground up so as to avoid the GPL and what you get in the open source is just OS tweaks.

f**k knows eh?

[willowhaus]

I'd pay. I've bought software for all the OSs I've run (including BeOS!). Music apps on Linux have been very slow in coming, yet there is a base there who want them - witness the development of Ardour, Audacity, Rosegarden...and many more before them (C-Sound, anyone?).

BTW - the only reason you'd have to recompile your kernel is if you a) need to customize your machine, or b) you broke it. The point of running Linux is that you DON'T have to screw with it - it just runs & runs...

P.S. - If you can't figure out how to use your computer running KDE or Gnome these days, you probably shouldn't be running a DAW. ;^P

[AD80]

P.S. - If you can't figure out how to use your computer running KDE or Gnome these days, you probably shouldn't be running a DAW. ;^P

I've been running a DAW very succesfully for years and I have no idea what the hell KDE or Gnome is.

[djsubject]

compileing installs for me is f**ked up

i used to use DSL (dahm small linux) it had some 1 click installs on there but the stuff that wasant on there i couldent compile for dog poo



Subz

[Lunch Money]

That's it. Installing a base distribution isn't a problem. It's updating and adding new programs that starts to get annoying.

The Redhat way of doing the RPM thingy was showing promise, but it failed to deliver.

Greg

[AD80]

Ok now I dont even know what anybody's talkin about. Did I forget english or something?

[dto]

The Redhat way of doing the RPM thingy was showing promise, but it failed to deliver.

Ahhh, but apt-get is the way -- RPM/yum is a weak alternative, IMO. After hearing people rave about apt-get for years I finally installed Ubuntu on two machines and it has been great for me so far.

[IIRs]

P.S. - If you can't figure out how to use your computer running KDE or Gnome these days, you probably shouldn't be running a DAW. ;^P

I've been running a DAW very succesfully for years and I have no idea what the hell KDE or Gnome is.

%$£( *&)&& "% ^&*G*& £%"% ^^!()*^ *(£^ %%^) &*!