For Steinberg, any future product and update release, Windows below 10 is 'dead'

[Psuper]

The 'average Joe' on his Ubuntu desktop is rare. The 'average Joe' has a malware-infested windows machine who has no idea he has any malware at all.

Smartphones however... lots of average Joes on them who has not a clue about security. And those smartphones dominate the "connected" landscape, easily the same if not more access and use than personal computers, and 80%-90% of that insurmountable number of phones run some flavor of linux -- the largest presence of any OS in the world, holding more personal and critical data than one would care to admit. Would that be more 'widely accepted by non-technicals' for you?

And the vast majority of infrastructure those connected phones run on? You guessed it.

You're really going into labor with your arguments because frankly all I've seen from you is assertion after assertion, off-context tautologies and non-sequiturs. Again I don't see a point in your post unless self-gratification from producing words is it. That, or there's an impenetrable language or other cultural barrier. I'll go with that. Doesn't matter, it only means we must both accept that we were not meant to have this dialogue.

Or.. I simply have more experience in the matter and can produce it effortlessly while others like yourself do, in fact, grasp at straws trying to support a false narrative due to it originating from the self.

Nothing I stated was an argument, nor assertion, its simply factual. And unlike yours, also non confrontational.

[stearine]

Or.. I simply have more experience in the matter and can produce it effortlessly while others like yourself do, in fact, grasp at straws trying to support a false narrative due to it originating from the self.

Your experience in this subject matter - to an extent that would trump mine - certainly isn't demonstrated in anything you've contributed to this thread as it could easily be the usual regurgitation from the fresh out of high-school Linux zealot. You've perhaps touched on every possible cliché of Linux superiority, mostly uninvited, without providing any foundation for it - just a bunch of handwaving, nodding and murmuring about some Windows spyware hyperbole.

Nothing I stated was an argument, nor assertion, its simply factual.

i.e. tautological; It adds no information and doesn't prove, disprove, nor even pertain in a meaningful way to anything that was discussed. Might as well get "back" on topic? :-)

[CasualHobbyist]

Well, never thought this would become a Linux topic thread. Guess the flames can't be stopped anymore, oh well! if that's how we are going to play it, allow me to take a go then, however, since quoting everyone would make my post incredibly huge, I shall direct them to certain users:

To stearine: I never implied otherwise that using Linux didn't take time, of course every new environment and tools require time to learn and use. And I mentioned quite clearly in my posts before that using Linux is not for everyone. If someone is on a support contract, with tight deadlines, requires Windows plugins to make the deadends and pay the meals then I said that those users may not benefit because then they cannot take advantage of the rights they have when they buy a plugin. If they consider time a "luxury" or "too valuable to do anything else", then they are not the right users of Linux, as simple as that.

I'll quote a post from someone else "There’s not much point in debating the ‘value’ of learning it, as that value will differ from person to person.", how one values or calculates the worth of their time or tools differs and varies among every person, you cannot generalize this no matter what you say or feel. The world isn't a clone of a single person.

To chk: Your experiences have been particularly interesting to read. Because whenever I hear "I have had problems with OpenSuse, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, etc. every distro out there imaginable and I had to terminal fiddle, etc." followed with "In contrast, Windows or macOS are smooth sailing" I have 20 other Linux users who will tell you, with video and screenshot proof, how Windows (and sometimes macOS) are broken beyond belief and that's why they switched to one of those Linux distros because they are "smooth sailing and 100% functional"

This happens to a lot of people. One's experience is going to be different from each other when it comes to OSes, obviously. I can only say that if you have had problems before, try and communicating them to see what they are, sometimes is not the OS fault but the user's misguided direction (That isn't to say that it couldn't have been the OS either (though rare, not impossible), but different factors play into those and Linux has gotten better with compatibility as time goes on, I can only say that researching what your hardware is and how it plays into Linux helps)

To INTRANCER: "The alternatives are pretty much poor imitation's of commercial software on Windows" I respectfully disagree with this notion. A lot of people consider ZynSubAddFX one of the best synths available out there, and the host of LV2 plugins will also work fine for mixing or mastering purposes as well. Just because it doesn't have a price tag of the hundreds of pounds or dollars, that automatically means is a "poor imitation", if you doubt my words: (He is unfa, a youtuber who regularly posts about tools on Linux that work very well, and is also the youtuber behind an official DAW channel (Ardour/Mixbus, a highly praised DAW among users, composers and audio engineers) where he posts tutorials and techniques on how to do music on Linux )

If you have professional work that needs to be done exclusively with Windows plugins and your favorite DAW is only there, then that's understandable. You want to take advantage of the supports right that you have, but I still find it odd that someone who spent thousands of pounds in Windows software would be posting about Linux all of the sudden? just an observation of mine.

That being said, you did tried Linux and you did find that its plugins or software does not meet your needs and that's cool! As long as we are respectful of other people's software and do not bash, call them names or state wrong things, that is cool. I did wanted to make an observation about what you said so hopefully you don't take this in bad light, that wasn't my intention at all!

To general: Linux, as I said, is not for everyone. However, it is an excellent tool that can be customized down to the tiniest detail. For some people this doesn't matter and for some (a lot) this matters quite, specially when security is brought up. I can only suggest trying it out and see how it goes for you.

[Psuper]

Or.. I simply have more experience in the matter and can produce it effortlessly while others like yourself do, in fact, grasp at straws trying to support a false narrative due to it originating from the self.

Your experience in this subject matter - to an extent that would trump mine - certainly isn't demonstrated in anything you've contributed to this thread as it could easily be the usual regurgitation from the fresh out of high-school Linux zealot. You've perhaps touched on every possible cliché of Linux superiority, mostly uninvited, without providing any foundation for it - just a bunch of handwaving, nodding and murmuring about some Windows spyware hyperbole.

Nothing I stated was an argument, nor assertion, its simply factual.

i.e. tautological; It adds no information and doesn't prove, disprove, nor even pertain in a meaningful way to anything that was discussed. Might as well get "back" on topic?

Apparently you don't realize anyone can read the posts.

Sum:

You "Linux isn't more secure, it's not targeted because its not mainstream".
Me: "Linux is totally mainstream just not in the areas you know about".
You: big-word-meltdown-boy followed by patronizing-topic-focuser

[Hink]

just want to point out this thread is about operating systems, really windows 10 and steinberg (but natural to talk about other os')...it should not be about you statements, lets just stay on track with that please

[codec_spurt]

This thread is about Steinberg's human rights violations

You just didn't love your freedom enough.

I quite enjoy reading those thought streams, but maybe that stuff deserves its own thread. This thread is about Steinberg's human rights violations. Here's a little nightmare material before I go to bed: https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/th ... trust.html - You seem just the right kind of person. My apologies if it's not a novel thing, but it's funny.

Ah ah. Too funny!

I quickly skimmed it and thought about the Ken Thompson hack with the backdoor in compilers, and lo and behold when I do a search, this page comes up second in the search results. Oops.

I know his name was at the top, but I skipped that and went further down to the code. Weird. Bingo.

This was my search string: "https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... r+backdoor"

This was the first result: http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack=

And this was the third: https://softwareengineering.stackexchan ... mpson-hack

I first learned about this 'hack' when I read the New Hacker's Dictionary back in the 90's. (Jargon File)

https://www.outpost9.com/reference/jarg ... on_17.html


Historically, back doors have often lurked in systems longer than anyone expected or planned, and a few have become widely known. Ken Thompson's 1983 Turing Award lecture to the ACM admitted the existence of a back door in early Unix versions that may have qualified as the most fiendishly clever security hack of all time. In this scheme, the C compiler contained code that would recognize when the `login' command was being recompiled and insert some code recognizing a password chosen by Thompson, giving him entry to the system whether or not an account had been created for him.

Normally such a back door could be removed by removing it from the source code for the compiler and recompiling the compiler. But to recompile the compiler, you have to use the compiler -- so Thompson also arranged that the compiler would recognize when it was compiling a version of itself, and insert into the recompiled compiler the code to insert into the recompiled `login' the code to allow Thompson entry -- and, of course, the code to recognize itself and do the whole thing again the next time around! And having done this once, he was then able to recompile the compiler from the original sources; the hack perpetuated itself invisibly, leaving the back door in place and active but with no trace in the sources.

The talk that suggested this truly moby hack was published as "Reflections on Trusting Trust", "Communications of the ACM 27", 8 (August 1984), pp. 761--763 (text available at http://www.acm.org/classics). Ken Thompson has since confirmed that this hack was implemented and that the Trojan Horse code did appear in the login binary of a Unix Support group machine. Ken says the crocked compiler was never distributed. Your editor has heard two separate reports that suggest that the crocked login did make it out of Bell Labs, notably to BBN, and that it enabled at least one late-night login across the network by someone using the login name `kt'.


I was always fascinated by compilers when I first started studying computer programming. The languages they were built with. Compiler optimization techniques. Debugging. Disassembly. Decompilation.

Talking of Decompilation, this one still gets me all hot and bothered all these years later: https://yurichev.com/mirrors/DCC_decomp ... thesis.pdf [PDF]

"Reverse Compilation Techniques" by Cristina Cifuentes is an all time classic. A must read. For programmers. For crackers. For hackers. For those that just want to know how a computer really works.


Let's let Ken have the last word here:


Moral

The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect.




(Captain Crunch. 2600)

[jabe]

I gave up giving money to Steinberg because I found Clean 4 wouldn't install, but I can run it on older stand-alone PCs. Waveform 5 I'd use if it worked, but Audacity does the job. I didn't like Cubase VST 5.0 and I thought restarting the numbering of Cubase was sneaky. The LM4 plug-in is another disappointment, but I intend to try the drum noises in a sampler at some point. Never mind.

[BONES]

You might need some hacks to be able to even install the software though. I think that was how it used to be for Cubase 5, when you tried to install it on Windows XP. It showed a "unsupported OS" in the installer, or something similar,

That's was a different scenario, with XP being the first consumer version of Windows to run on the NT kernel, rather than on top of DOS. The change from XP to W10 is far more incremental.

however, it is important for us to remember other people's preferences no matter how foreign to us is ok.

No it isn't. If someone has a legitimate reason, then that is understandable/acceptable but if, as is usually the case, it is nothing more than sheer bloody-mindedness or fear of change, then it is something that makes life harder for the rest of us and we need to talk some sense into them.

Glad i don’t use cubase. Plenty of good reasons to avoid windoze 10.

Yet you seem unable to mention even one. I sure as hell can't think of any. Win10 is so far ahead of any previous version of Windows, and of any competing OSes, that's it's jus not funny.

... found Roland and Korg refused to write drivers for two of my hardware synths. One had the last update to 8, the other stopped at 7.

Drivers should be compatible between Win7/8 and Win10. I can't think of a single situation where I have needed an upgraded driver to run anything. Win7 drivers run fine in Win10.

And yes, it feels like they do these things purposely.

Yes, to make things better for everyone.

Too much waste of time tweeking win10 and affected software after updates.

Care to give us an example? Because I have never had to tweak anything after an update and I run Insider Preview builds, so I get new versions about five times more often than most people.

... you have to mess with windows services and windows registry to disable, not pospone, updates.

Or just get the updates and have the latest and greatest version of Windows available.

[BBFG#]

however, it is important for us to remember other people's preferences no matter how foreign to us is ok.

... found Roland and Korg refused to write drivers for two of my hardware synths. One had the last update to 8, the other stopped at 7.

Drivers should be compatible between Win7/8 and Win10. I can't think of a single situation where I have needed an upgraded driver to run anything. Win7 drivers run fine in Win10.

I know for a fact they aren't and they don't. They have specific drivers and while the one that is written for 8 is backwards compatible the one for 7 stops at 7 and neither are recognized by 8.1 or 10.
Just because you can't think of a single situation doesn't mean there aren't others with multiple ones.

And yes, it feels like they do these things purposely.

Yes, to make things better for everyone.

In marketing theory, yes. But both arbitrarily decided to not write these particular drivers around the same time they were marketing what they felt was their new HW targeted at the same market. Problem is, their new HW couldn't do what our chosen HW does.
It was very much like "we dumped it for what is better for us and we're making sure nothing will ever again talk to what we dumped." (Unless you go back in and convert it all back to the MIDI connection.)

Pretty transparent to us also. But if you didn't own them to begin with, you wouldn't have a clue. Which is also obvious.

But I know Bones is trolling for its oppositional disorder and not because it has any experience to offer here.

All anyone has to do is go to Roland and Korg and see which drivers end where and for what products.

And all of that - wasn't even the point of my previous post that was picked apart and quoted.

Just as they wound up doing for those of us upgrading from HALion 5 to 6, depending on how the next version pans out, they may find themselves having to issue a second serial yet again to keep everything working for us between Cubase 10 and 11.

Edit: I'm not going to waste another comment box on this, so I'll just add to this one to repeat that I had upgraded to 8.1 and then 10 and after finding those drivers were no longer recognized, downgraded to 8. And after contacting those two companies and receiving notice they would not write those drivers for 8.1 or 10 and recommended instead buying their new hardware - downgraded to 7 where everything still works.
My second machine however does run 10 and it only runs software.

And I don't really have the time to waste with someone using hardware that came out close to the release of 10 and doesn't have a clue to what I'm talking about.

[BONES]

Just because you can't think of a single situation doesn't mean there aren't others with multiple ones.

It's not about thinking, it is about first-hand experience and I had my Roland Boutiques and Korg Minilogue/Monologue all working perfectly with Windows 10. I even used the Boutiques as USB audio I/O with no problems. The Korgs only required the generic Korg MIDI drivers but the Boutiques had specific drivers, IIRC.

In marketing theory, yes. But both arbitrarily decided to not write these particular drivers around the same time they were marketing what they felt was their new HW targeted at the same market. Problem is, their new HW couldn't do what our chosen HW does.

What hardware are you talking about? As I said, mine all worked perfectly.

It was very much like "we dumped it for what is better for us and we're making sure nothing will ever again talk to what we dumped." (Unless you go back in and convert it all back to the MIDI connection.)

That's just absolute bullshit. The MIDIman 1 x 1 USB to MIDI thing I bought in 1999 works perfectly with Win10, as does Ultranova and my Line 6 KB37, both of which were released long before Win8/10, as well as Analog Keys and all the rest of my hardware. Everything I plug into Win10 works exactly as anyone would expect it to. Everything. And the older stuff runs with old drivers that haven't had to be updated in years.

But if you didn't own them to begin with, you wouldn't have a clue. Which is also obvious.

Agreed. Trouble is, I've owned plenty and haven't had the tiniest problem.

But I know Bones is trolling for its oppositional disorder and not because it has any experience to offer here.

You wish, pal.

All anyone has to do is go to Roland and Korg and see which drivers end where and for what products.

Have you even bothered to try the Win7 drivers or have you just made the entirely ignorant and arbitrary decision that they won't work?

[Reefius]

Have you even bothered to try the Win7 drivers or have you just made the entirely ignorant and arbitrary decision that they won't work?

I have a Roland Juno G and have tried installing Win7 and Win8 drivers for it, but none of them worked in Win10. I can install them, but the synth is just not recognized by Win10.

[BONES]

And you need to connect your Juno-G for what purpose, exactly? I'd suggest those drivers are still at version 1.0.0 after 13 years because you are the only person who ever tried to download them. And that's the thing to note, they didn't change the driver version for Windows 8, which indicates they are probably exactly the same drivers as the Win7 ones. Reading the SOS review, it sounds like using it with a computer is an absolute punish anyway, best suited to Win7.

Seriously, if you don't see how much of an outlier you are with that thing, then you have some kind of mental issue affecting your judgement. Have a look at what an Ultranova can do through it's USB connection and you'll see what I mean.

[Reefius]

I was just pointing out that your statement about Win7 drivers working in Win10 was nonsense.

[BONES]

I was just pointing out that your statement about Win7 drivers working in Win10 was nonsense.

Except it's not nonsense, it applies 99.9% of the time. If anything, your example is the exception which proves the rule. I suppose if I still had my ASR-10 I could complain that my Win10 computer doesn't support it either but that's mostly because my laptop doesn't have a SCSI port.

[chk071]

You guys really should try Reap... ahem.. Linu... i mean... nevermind.