What would make you switch to Linux?

[fmr]

[It's really pretty simple: linux has three main branches: Debian, RedHat and Slackware. Many of the audio-based distributions are made in Debian. Ubuntu is under Debian.

Each distribution, such as Ubuntu, has "repositories." These are basically online application containers. You connect to one, search for an application (ie. sequencer, synth, etc) and it lists the ones available. You select the ones you want and click install. It does all the installing to your system in a few minutes. Now you have new apps!

brian

What if what I want isn't at the "repositories". oops... wait, I remembered It isn't, because there isn't a Linux version.

see? THAT'S the problem. If there was something really meaningful for Linux, it would not be in a "repository" (why does it sound like a trash depot?), but in its own web site, with itas own installer, with all the needed extras, to make sure the user get things working as soon as it get it.

I think that Reaper has a Linux version, but I never saw Reaper in any "repository". Why?

[whyterabbyt]

Yes, corporations depend on happy end-users. So does the open-source community.

Well, if by 'happy end-users' you mean people who are okay with being told 'well if its not working for you, you fix it; you've got the source code' then perhaps.

[spaceman]

For the heck of it, every time I encounter OSX, I'm baffled with what I have to interface it with -- the effing mouse has only one button!

Apple havent shipped a one-button-only mouse in a very long time. Their current mice have no buttons, but when they introduced the Magic Mouse in 2007 or so, it registered left- and right- clicks, and Apple has supported right-click context menus for years, right back to OS-9.

They also make the best touch pads out there.

And let's be honest, who on earth buys an Apple mouse?
I've been using a Dell mouse for 5 years now with my various Macs.

[ras.s]

For the heck of it, every time I encounter OSX, I'm baffled with what I have to interface it with -- the effing mouse has only one button!

Apple havent shipped a one-button-only mouse in a very long time. Their current mice have no buttons, but when they introduced the Magic Mouse in 2007 or so, it registered left- and right- clicks, and Apple has supported right-click context menus for years, right back to OS-9.

Yea, I learned that pretty quickly. But at first I was baffled with it; the mouse appeared as having no buttons, but I was able to click with it, so I had to try if it worked for a right click as well. And it did, which was confusing as the device looks like having no buttons at all. And that one didn't have a mousewheel, which I'm used to having.

But it's really just another example of someone designing a system and users having to learn how to use it, no matter what the system is.


fmr, that then goes down the route of what being a computer musician means -- and to whom. Perhaps the pianist doesn't tune his piano, but the guitarist tunes his guitar and might even experiment with different pickups. The computer musician might want to be able to use his instrument (combination of soft- and hardware, "the DAW" in its broadest sense) in an entirely modular fashion, or the computer musician might want to muck about the internals to make something completely unique. Linux gives a different approach to reach those goals.

Want to have system that just boots into a ready-made setup of carefully chosen individual effects and instruments that work together, ready to be recorded? That's not possible with the competitors.


And ZenPunk, true, the investment is a consideration for many. But then, to some it means nothing, if there's an option to go out and be entirely experimental. Actually, I think some people here might actually enjoy the experimental nature of things in Linux land.

And once again, regarding software and hardware compatibility, it really can't be blamed on the operating system, the kernel and driver developers, the people who make the distributions or people who make hosts and protocols. It's the job of the companies who make the said soft- and hardware to make them work -- they make them work on the other operating systems as well. If there are proprietary drivers for hardware, then they are just that.

Also ZenPunk, you are mixing up your own posts. The one in which you excluded KVR and the one in which you made a statement about mosts musicians, were different posts.

[ras.s]

see? THAT'S the problem. If there was something really meaningful for Linux, it would not be in a "repository" (why does it sound like a trash depot?), but in its own web site, with itas own installer, with all the needed extras, to make sure the user get things working as soon as it get it.

I think that Reaper has a Linux version, but I never saw Reaper in any "repository". Why?

What is the problem? That it doesn't function the way you think it should? There's only one single way of doing things, and that's the way you are used to?

I for one think it's a very elegant system for delivering software (and software updates). Look into it, it's far easier than trawling through websites while keeping in mind which version you already have. And even then, the applications most often are provided on the developer's websites as well.

Few posts ago you said you didn't know what a repository was and now you say you haven't seen Reaper in any of those? So, umm..?

[briandc]

[It's really pretty simple: linux has three main branches: Debian, RedHat and Slackware. Many of the audio-based distributions are made in Debian. Ubuntu is under Debian.

Each distribution, such as Ubuntu, has "repositories." These are basically online application containers. You connect to one, search for an application (ie. sequencer, synth, etc) and it lists the ones available. You select the ones you want and click install. It does all the installing to your system in a few minutes. Now you have new apps!

brian

What if what I want isn't at the "repositories". oops... wait, I remembered It isn't, because there isn't a Linux version.

see? THAT'S the problem. If there was something really meaningful for Linux, it would not be in a "repository" (why does it sound like a trash depot?), but in its own web site, with itas own installer, with all the needed extras, to make sure the user get things working as soon as it get it.

I think that Reaper has a Linux version, but I never saw Reaper in any "repository". Why?

If it's open source and free (gratis), then it should be in the repos. The advantage to having it there is that the package manager (the app you use to see what's in the repos) will install the app and the related dependencies for you, no sweat.
You can also find the app at the developer's website, and download it and install it, if you want. But if it's in the repos, why bother? The work is done for you.
And, if it's not in the repos, just make a request to have the package added. (Or you can add another repository that has it available, if it's a repo that's the same "category" of linux (ie. Debian).

It's about as easy as going grocery shopping. -Without having to leave your house, or having to open your wallet.

I have Reaper, and they have certainly done a nice job with it working in Linux. You won't find it in the repos because it's not open source, and it's also not gratis. (although I never use it because I don't need it; I bought it just to see how it behaved, and I was happy to see that it worked fine)


brian

[briandc]

Yes, corporations depend on happy end-users. So does the open-source community.

Well, if by 'happy end-users' you mean people who are okay with being told 'well if its not working for you, you fix it; you've got the source code' then perhaps.

No way. I mean end-users who want to "just get in and use it." I think you are thinking that things don't work in linux. Personally, I've been making music on two different linux machines for several years now. Not much to fix at all, just power-on and turn up the volume! (and shake the town up a bit...)



brian

[whyterabbyt]

I think you are thinking that things don't work in linux.

I think Im entitled to. How many decades experience of it have you got? Im nearly past my second, after Alan Cox first advised me to try it out. Ive been there, done that, and recompiled my kernel fifteen times to get 'that' working at all, and ultimately decided I know exactly which niches I'll use Linux in, and which I wont.

[ZenPunkHippy]

Also ZenPunk, you are mixing up your own posts. The one in which you excluded KVR and the one in which you made a statement about mosts musicians, were different posts.

Not really, since the 2nd or 3rd go at "most musicians -kvr users" was a correction to an earlier generalisation.

The thing is, people on this board are kinda self-selecting for a certain type of music / technology - which is fine - but it's not by a long shot representative of all musicians, not even those who use hosts + plugins. If you hang out at other forums, some people are really quite bemused by how obsessed KVR is with the tech side of things.

These are the people Linux has to appeal to before it is ready for anything other than technically savvy users.

Peace,
Andy.

[ras.s]

For those who are interested in nit-picking, here and here are the two posts we are talking about and I think we can just pass along now.

But you are correct that this forum is quite technologically minded, and I guess your experience as a software support guy also supports a larger view of what musicians expect of the software they use. Which is that it works.

But then, a lot of the musicians that I know who are the sort of people who could be called "computer musicians", who produce themselves, play all the instruments and mix them and so on, are all quite technically/technologically minded. That they know how things work because they want to know how they work -- to be able to use them to their best ability. And they don't hang here or on other forums, atleast that I know of. (And myself, I wouldn't dare to venture outside of this little bubble here.)


And the appeal of a system obviously is very much about what's possible to do with it. Software and hardware companies not willing to invest money/time into supporting Linux, doesn't really make Linux more appealing. But it's their shame (and in a way, their loss as well, as they have to deal with things like keeping up with Apple's or Steinberg's whims), not the operating system's.

Or it's really a chicken/egg type of situation. It won't be seen as "professional" until there is software there that costs hundreds of euros. Which actually is the situation we are in now, ..

[fmr]

Want to have system that just boots into a ready-made setup of carefully chosen individual effects and instruments that work together, ready to be recorded? That's not possible with the competitors.

WHAT?

[briandc]

I think you are thinking that things don't work in linux.

I think Im entitled to. How many decades experience of it have you got? Im nearly past my second, after Alan Cox first advised me to try it out. Ive been there, done that, and recompiled my kernel fifteen times to get 'that' working at all, and ultimately decided I know exactly which niches I'll use Linux in, and which I wont.

For making music specifically, I'd say I've been at it for 3-4 years. Compiling kernels isn't necessary anymore, unless you want to do it that way. I've done it once, it went just fine.


brian

[ghettosynth]

...

[glokraw]

What if what I want isn't at the "repositories". oops... wait, I remembered It isn't, because there isn't a Linux version.

see? THAT'S the problem. If there was something really meaningful for Linux, it would not be in a "repository" (why does it sound like a trash depot?), but in its own web site, with itas own installer, with all the needed extras, to make sure the user get things working as soon as it get it.

I think that Reaper has a Linux version, but I never saw Reaper in any "repository". Why?

Actually, the purpose of the repository, is to hold
'all the needed extras', on behalf of the package manager app, and that app
analizes how 'all the needed extras' interact together, so if those 'extras'
bring along the need for even more 'extras', the package manager tells you,
and gives you the options to proceed, or desist, thus protecting the system.

Extras, in linux lingo, are 'dependencies', you can google 'dependency hell'.

rpm - i and dpkg -i used by sudo or root user, are manual install commands,
sometimes needed, when an app is not in a repository, and if it needs 'extras',
the command output will list them, and you must download them from
the various package websites, for example, google hydrogen debian package,
and getting the app is easy pickings.

Freeware coders have a wide variety of motives, and desired end results,
often very different from a working commercial coder, so a nice gui,
and wide feature set, may not be in the plans of a coder who crafted
a tool for personal use, or the enjoyment of the craft, and also allows
others to use the code. It may do exactly what is needed/desired for the author,
and still be seen as sub-par, or a reject, when compared to commercial apps.
Cheers

[glokraw]

I'm technically savvy: can install and administer Linux systems, MySQL, develop software in C/C++, Python etc. etc.

However, as a musician, who wants to write music and run plugins with a minimum of fuss ...

Yes if you install it with the package manager.

You lost me as "package whatsamajiggy". The rest of that paragraph? Jus forget it

Linux is not there yet, it may never be there - at least not for another 5 - 10 years.. This is not actually a problem, since Linux is great for other stuff.

Peace,
Andy.

You imply you don't know what a package manager is, yet state you can
install/admin a linux system...this makes me think it's been
many many years since you gained that ability, and you're
out of the loop now, or you're just having a lark here, in your spare time.
A modern linux distro, preconfigured for audio, of which there are many,
will even do well running Alchemy. Is that 'there' enough for you?
Cheers