Linux EXT?

[insane]

i don´t have the cd burned yet , so i can´t talk to much about it, but just take me away this little doubt , i see many "versions" of linux , so consider this situation, i install now one of that versions (ubuntu for example..), if later, i decide that i prefer other version/package (suse, fedora,redhat,etc...) can it be done an upgrade instalation? like happens with windows versions, not reformating the disk(and not loosing files) , or we have to do refformat it/ install from scratch ,where everything is lost, every time we see other linux that we think we would like more..
thanks.

[BONES]

Linux doesn't really work that way. There isn't much to like about one distro that you could not get up and running in another. There may be a few different configuration tools or slightly different package management or something like that but 99% of everything will work on any distribution. But to answer your question, it would probably require a full reinstall of everything. So if you can be bothered downloading them, try a few different live CD's and see which one you prefer. KNOPPIX is good and seems to be reasonably popular for audio. Personally, these days I have no real preference and when I did in the past, it was largely based on the installation experience. If it correctly detected and installed support for all my hardware, it was a keeper.

[fake]

Damm, just been reading.

http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2006/01/0256.html

Looks like vst support in ext-linux will not happen unless you compile it yourself.
I forgot, like a dummy as I did know already that binaries cannot be redistributed with vst support. It breaks the gpl and is illegal under the terms of the Steinberg vstsdk license.

However, if ext supports jack then the tracks could be routed to use vst's via dssi or fst. Or build ext with dssi support.

fake

[MartynM]

I've just intalled a full version of the Planet CCRMA bundle on a separate drive. http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/

I had a good friend help me through the setup, which was just as well, as my Linux knowlege is pretty non existant at this point in time.

I must say that after seeing how it all installs, and how well thought out and clear the whole install process was, I'm totally blown away. My hardware runs really well, it even recognises my UC33, the only thing missing is mature software.

If people adopted the Linux platform for music on a wider scale, I don't think it'd be long before newer and better plugins would supercede any beloved vsts. At least, on a personal level, I'm not particularly attatched to anything I couldn't do without if there were a valid alternative.

I'm hoping that eXT2's move to Linux will help to make good programmers develop plugins that'll work better than what we have already. This is a lovely OS, I have a lot of learning to do.

Bring on eXT2, I think I'm almost ready to switch platforms!

[plush2]

Compiling (building your own binary) is getting easier and easier in my opinion. I just compiled LMMS http://lmms.sourceforge.net/ last night with VST support in one try using the instructions on the website. It's a very slick looking package although I have yet to try making music with it (I'm of course holding my breath until EXT2 comes out). I would think that if Jorgen has already created a 'linux vst' then there's likely some sort of workaround he's implementing. The reason I mention LMMS is that all they asked to compile vst support where the two all important patched header files in my /local/incude directory. They have devoloped a workaround independant of xfst or dssi-vst so I'm sure Jorgen can do/has done the same.

[jorgen]

Looks like vst support in ext-linux will not happen unless you compile it yourself.
I forgot, like a dummy as I did know already that binaries cannot be redistributed with vst support. It breaks the gpl and is illegal under the terms of the Steinberg vstsdk license.

you cant distribute the vst sdk, and you cant distribute a binary of gpl app, Im doing neither...

cheers
jorgen

[fake]

@ plush2

Just did the same this very day!
Not compiled the vst/fst yet, even tho, lmms is very, very good. A bit hungry on the cpu but I like the idea of having a low quality mode as well for listening. Cut's the cpu use in half!

@ jorgen

The workaround is simple, the vstskd headers just need to be downloaded and installed by the user. The same as what you do with dssi-vst, no license problems then.
Maybe you are writing your own wrapper, whatever way i'm sure you will do a good job. As I said before, I can't wait and by the sound of it, nor can others.

Must admit, I have had very few problems with dssi.

fake

[jorgen]

The workaround is simple, the vstskd headers just need to be downloaded and installed by the user

I dont need a workaround. XT2 standalone/VST is not GPL, not open source and I dont use any GPL code.

When you develope software, its up to you if its open source or not. Its not illegal to make binaries for linux.

cheers
jorgen

[plush2]

Commercial software on linux??? hehe

[MartynM]

Commercial software on linux??? hehe

I really don't get why that's such a problem, people are obviously prepared to pay for good software, how can anyone create anything worthwhile if they're not getting something out of it?

The stigma that everything on Linux has to be open source and free is not just a virtue, it's also it's main problem. A LOT of people really want a new OS at the moment, Windows Vista (if it ever comes out) looks like it'll be horrible, and Apple a lot of peeps can't really afford to buy into. A survey recently revealed the main reason for people not really wanting to switch to Linux simply being "no Photoshop" (GIMP doesn't do CMYK). A lot of other apps work better than microsoft equivalents, especially Firefox.

What is wrong with a developer sticking his neck out and charging a small ammount of money for his hard work? I think that this is a pioneering move that Jorgen is making, the die hard open source community might get a few ruffled feathers about it, but screw them, that attitude is precisely why we don't have a proper third option in the OS department.

I'd much rather pay a man to write good software that actually works, than get something shakey for nothing.

[pHz]

Commercial software on linux??? hehe

I really don't get why that's such a problem, people are obviously prepared to pay for good software, how can anyone create anything worthwhile if they're not getting something out of it?
The stigma that everything on Linux has to be open source and free is not just a virtue, it's also it's main problem. A LOT of people really want a new OS at the moment, Windows Vista (if it ever comes out) looks like it'll be horrible, and Apple a lot of peeps can't really afford to buy into. A survey recently revealed the main reason for people not really wanting to switch to Linux simply being "no Photoshop" (GIMP doesn't do CMYK). A lot of other apps work better than microsoft equivalents, especially Firefox.
What is wrong with a developer sticking his neck out and charging a small ammount of money for his hard work? I think that this is a pioneering move that Jorgen is making, the die hard open source community might get a few ruffled feathers about it, but screw them, that attitude is precisely why we don't have a proper third option in the OS department.
I'd much rather pay a man to write good software that actually works, than get something shakey for nothing.

i have (currently) no desire to move over to linux from XP but ...

... spot on comments there !!!

slainte rob

[fandango]

I was about to write the same post as MartynM, but I had a sense that plush2 was being satirical (hence the smilie).

No one in their right mind believes that someone shouldn't be rewarded financially for hard work. (except Stalin, perhaps...)

Anyway, there are several different forums online in which the linux/money argument is better debated.

[farlukar]

What is wrong with a developer sticking his neck out and charging a small ammount of money for his hard work?

There's Maya, Ansys, Coldfusion, Oracle and whatnot for linux, but you're not getting those for "a small amount"

[acousmod]

Hello,

I spent one week to test my VST plugins in Studio To Go, and I was agreeably surprised to note that much of them functions perfectly: it is as simple as double-clicking on a DLL file so that the plugin opens as a standalone version which can be connected as we want in Jack.
Chris Cannam who distributes this version of Linux (Debian Knoppix) has integrated the support of the VST Windows in Jack via DSSI - Wine, and the VSTi can be directly used in Rosegarden.

I remember to have read that XT2 will support only the LADSPA format of plugins and will not be compatible with Jack. Is this true?
If so, it would be a pity really because otherwise it would be possible to profit directly from most of the VST plugins which already exist, and the compatibility with Jack is one of the more interesting part of audio in Linux…
The possibility of connecting XT2 in Jack would at least make it possible to use all these plugins externally if we cannot open them inside.

Actually it is possible to run the VST version of EXT 1.3 in Studio To Go and to insert the Windows VST inside ! (but it runs slowly)

Any idea ?

[tetraplan]

Commercial software on linux??? hehe

In the movie post-production and hi-end 3D industry, this is standard. An obvious example would be Maya.

Oh, and let's not start about server and database software.

About time some audio apps made the jump.

Groet, Erik