A sad new low for lack of teamwork

[chk071]

What a car crash of a thread...

i also criticize that open source projects often die a sudden death, after years of developing up to a 0.2 beta version, simply because they're written by people in their spare time, because there is no full time employment happening.

Not sure of your argument there, are you saying closed source projects/products are 'safer' then as they're worked on by employed people? Tell that to Logic or Alchemy users on Windows. Maybe with open source there's the possibility someone else could conceivably pick it up. Nothings certain or guaranteed, whatever OS you use.

What good of an example is that, considering that it happened to one product out of thousands? And let's not forget that it takes success, luck, and two parties for this kind of thing to happen. Also, it is still available, and being developed on Mac, so... basically, OF COURSE, it's safer to have a steady flow of income for the development of a product. Many (most?) open source projects develop at snail's pace, compared to commercial projects.

[GaryG]

OF COURSE, it's safer to have a steady flow of income for the development of a product. Many (most?) open source projects develop at snail's pace, compared to commercial projects.

You seem to be claiming a lot of stuff that just sounds like your opinion rather than fact. There is no given that commercial development is safer, look at how many dot.coms had massive amounts of money poured into them only to crash and burn, often before they even reached the market.

I could list plenty more discontinued Windows products that have people here in these very forums fuming because they can't now authorise them or the devs have just disappeared.

I just don't think you can make the broad generalisation that open source is greater risk then commercial/closed source stuff.

(for the record, Windows user 99% of the time who dabbles with Linux occasionally and feels it's finally viable as a music production platform).

[Gamma-UT]

I could list plenty more discontinued Windows products that have people here in these very forums fuming because they can't now authorise them or the devs have just disappeared.

To add to that point, open source is helping to keep some speciality music devices alive. Eigenlabs put their driver and application code out as open source a few years back to avoid cutting off the customer base if the company found itself unable to support further OS updates. Obviously that takes work from the user base but at least the option is there - it's not just "so long folks and thanks for all the fish" when the company stops running.

One of the reasons for going for the Linnstrument over a ROLI device was that its firmware runs on the Arduino environment. It's not quite open source but it provides the ability for users to extend the instrument's abilities and maintain compatibility with computers if the company can't continue to do that itself.

[Gamma-UT]

Many (most?) open source projects develop at snail's pace, compared to commercial projects.

Most commercial projects develop at a snail's pace compared to the fastest. Most simply fade away and die at some point due to lack of revenue.

It's a false dichotomy you're putting forward and for reasons I can't fathom. OK, so stuff doesn't make it - does that mean all work on open source should cease simply because of some failure? Why do you even care?

[ghettosynth]

What a car crash of a thread...

i also criticize that open source projects often die a sudden death, after years of developing up to a 0.2 beta version, simply because they're written by people in their spare time, because there is no full time employment happening.

Not sure of your argument there, are you saying closed source projects/products are 'safer' then as they're worked on by employed people? Tell that to Logic or Alchemy users on Windows. Maybe with open source there's the possibility someone else could conceivably pick it up. Nothings certain or guaranteed, whatever OS you use.

What good of an example is that, considering that it happened to one product out of thousands? And let's not forget that it takes success, luck, and two parties for this kind of thing to happen. Also, it is still available, and being developed on Mac, so... basically, OF COURSE, it's safer to have a steady flow of income for the development of a product. Many (most?) open source projects develop at snail's pace, compared to commercial projects.

Like DexEd? Is that the kind of snail's pace that you mean? Aren't people speculating that Arturia might be interested in it? I doubt that, but, it's a perfect example of how open source serves to protect existing users. Even if they license it to Arturia, there are no legal mechanisms that prevent others from continuing to develop the open source variant.

The development rate of open source and closed source varies dramatically and depends on many factors. How long have people been hoping for an update to Sylenth? If that were open source, and there was interest, you wouldn't have to wait.

There is also a lot of variation in quality in both open and closed source, neither model ensures that the product will be of any particular quality or developed on any particular schedule.

I don't think most people outside of the community, including you, really do understand the point of open source. You view software as if it's something that is a product for you to consume. You're certainly welcome to do that, and many open source projects encourage you to do that. Some, however, especially those that are stuck at version 0.2 aren't really for you. They're for people like me. I'm delighted to get something that is version 0.2 that I can modify and use for a specific purpose. I recently modified the NinJam source (v0.06) for a performance project. Many times the authors of those projects really only want to share with people like me. They want to talk to people who will be technically interested, who might contribute, who aren't going to fill up the support forums with a lot of whining about how it's not working for them and that this is a great example of why open source sucks. Often, those devs just want average users to go away so they can work on their little personal projects with other technical friends in peace.

[.jon]

The irony of defending open source in a thread dedicated to promoting commercial, closed source plugins for open source advocates.

Why does the OP think that open source folks should use closed source products?

[Klinke]

The irony of defending open source in a thread dedicated to promoting commercial, closed source plugins for open source advocates.

Why does the OP think that open source folks should use closed source products?

As someone who develop open source software in my free time (https://bitbucket.org/Klinkenstecker/cs ... manual.pdf) as in my professional career I would think I could count as open source folk too, nevertheless I use closed source products. Not everybody is so narrow-minded as you (but yes, some open source advocates are narrow-minded too, as the OP pointed out).

[chk071]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

[Gamma-UT]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

If you feel that strongly about this division between open and closed software, shouldn't you avoid all computers that are running open-source software?

[whyterabbyt]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should

Since it was actually your hypothesis that there's a difference, its actually up to you to provide proof of that, not anyone else.

[ghettosynth]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

I think that you're not reading what we're saying. Some open source projects develop quickly, some develop slowly. Some closed source projects develop quickly, some slowly. Your opinion isn't a fact.

I use Ubuntu EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE and have done so since it was released. I've used linux every day for about two decades now. My first install was using slackware. I use Windows EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE and have done so since it was released, i.e., slightly longer than two decades.

I purchase a LOT of closed source software and use it to make music. I use a LOT of open source software and use it to make music. I write open source and closed source software and have done so for about the same two decades or so.

If you can't say something similar, maybe you should concede that there are people with a better perspective than what you have and open your mind to what they are trying to tell you. I'm sorry bro, I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are clearly ignorant. You're that person in the music store asking how many rams they need in their computer to convert their Janet Jackson CD to midis.

Both open and closed source are strategies for releasing software that work well for some things and not for others. The motivations are not homogenous and neither are the results. You clearly lack the experience and education to draw meaningful generalizable conclusions. Development models are an active area of research and there are people studying this seriously and have been doing so for several decades. Go seek out scholar.google.com and search for open source development. There is a lot to read if you're genuinely interested, but your conclusions are silly and have been universally debunked. It's a challenging thing to study because it's an observational problem with complex data sets and large numbers of independent variables that are often highly correlated. Moreover, gaining access to closed source software is even more difficult and trying to study it with the necessary openness isn't always well received.

I don't recommend that most people use linux on their desktop and certainly not for making music. I don't use it as my primary DAW, but, it is involved in a number of ways in music making where Windows and closed source aren't even an option. I don't think that you should install linux and use it for anything, it's not for you. This thread isn't really for you TBH.

[chk071]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

If you feel that strongly about this division between open and closed software, shouldn't you avoid all computers that are running open-source software?

You do know that there is a difference between company making use of open source stuff, and Linux, and pure open source projects though, right? Apart from that, you should have seen by now, that i don't see black and white, like a lot of the Linux fanatics here. Otherwise they wouldn't argue that small open source projects, with 1 or 2 people working on them, or even bigger, foundation based ones with maybe 20 or 30 people working on them, could work as quickly as commercial projects with HUNDREDS of people working for them. But then, Linux and Open Source is like a religion for some. So i don't really expect realism, or objectivity anyway. If there's one thing i learned from my times on Linux forums, or basically, any place, or groups of people with an ideology, then it's that.

[chk071]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

I think that you're not reading what we're saying. Some open source projects develop quickly, some develop slowly. Some closed source projects develop quickly, some slowly. Your opinion isn't a fact.

I use Ubuntu EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE and have done so since it was released. I've used linux every day for about two decades now. My first install was using slackware. I use Windows EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE and have done so since it was released, i.e., slightly longer than two decades.

I purchase a LOT of closed source software and use it to make music. I use a LOT of open source software and use it to make music. I write open source and closed source software and have done so for about the same two decades or so.

If you can't say something similar, maybe you should concede that there are people with a better perspective than what you have and open your mind to what they are trying to tell you. I'm sorry bro, I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are clearly ignorant. You're that person in the music store asking how many rams they need tin their computer to convert their Janet Jackson CD to midis.

Both open and closed source are strategies for releasing software that work well for some things and not for others. The motivations are not homogenous and neither are the results. You clearly lack the experience and education to draw meaningful generalizable conclusions. Development models are an active area of research and there are people studying this seriously and have been doing so for several decades. Go seek out scholar.google.com and search for open source development. There is a lot to read if you're genuinely interested, but your conclusions are silly and have been universally debunked. It's a challenging thing to study because it's an observational problem with complex data sets and large numbers of independent variables that are often highly correlated. Moreover, gaining access to closed source software is even more difficult and trying to study it with the necessary openness isn't always well received.

I don't recommend that most people use linux on their desktop and certainly not for making music. I don't use it as my primary DAW, but, it is involved in a number of ways in music making where Windows and closed source aren't even an option. I don't think that you should install linux and use it for anything, it's not for you. This thread isn't really for you TBH.

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10? How would they, even when there's people working on the surface, it still has the same basement. And, how would they, if there's not remotely the same amount of people working on them, or people ABLE to work on them, when their business is elsewhere. Canonical's business is server applications e.g., and Linux Mint is sponsored, and funded. How, on earth, would they be able to develop as quickly? Guess if we all just pray enough, then we can all imagine that they work as quickly.

[Gamma-UT]

You do know that there is a difference between company making use of open source stuff, and Linux, and pure open source projects though, right?

What difference might that be? Try defining 'pure open source'.

Apart from that, you should have seen by now, that i don't see black and white, like a lot of the Linux fanatics here.

Oh wait, you're serious.

Otherwise they wouldn't argue that small open source projects, with 1 or 2 people working on them, or even bigger, foundation based ones with maybe 20 or 30 people working on them, could work as quickly as commercial projects with HUNDREDS of people working for them.

Citation needed.

[chk071]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should

Since it was actually your hypothesis that there's a difference, its actually up to you to provide proof of that, not anyone else.

What proof should i provide? Do you actually use software? Did you compare, for instance, how the development of Ubuntu is, compared to Windows or MacOS? I think, yes, you do. But still, you don't want to see the point. Which is weird, because, obviously, you are an intelligent person. Next you're going to tell me that Libre Office is as progressed as MS Office? What a laugh, seriously. MS Office is better, and more progressed in ANY regard.