The linux DAW thread

[uOpt]

Not the Linux You Remember: 16 Every Day Tasks That No Longer Need the Terminal

And not one of them involves setting up Pipewire for music production, I wonder why?

The article comes from a mainstream Linux site, not from an audio site. Pipewire for audio production is more a niche thing. Yet, even there, there are already nearly a dozen GUI tools for adjusting bit rate, sample rate, quantum, etc, etc. it’s easier in that area too.

Why do there have to be dozens of tools for the same thing?

Same with the no-terminal link you posted. It always lists multiple GUI tools. How is a n00b gonna choose?

[audiojunkie]

Not the Linux You Remember: 16 Every Day Tasks That No Longer Need the Terminal

And not one of them involves setting up Pipewire for music production, I wonder why?

The article comes from a mainstream Linux site, not from an audio site. Pipewire for audio production is more a niche thing. Yet, even there, there are already nearly a dozen GUI tools for adjusting bit rate, sample rate, quantum, etc, etc. it’s easier in that area too.

Why do there have to be dozens of tools for the same thing?

Same with the no-terminal link you posted. It always lists multiple GUI tools. How is a n00b gonna choose?

That’s a very good question, and it is the heart of Linux culture. The reason, is that in the open source world, freedom reigns supreme. A person, any person, might see a need and decide to come up with a solution. Other developers might be thinking the same thing, and they too might start a project to solve the same problem. Some people may not like a person’s solution, and may want to solve the problem differently. Some may like a project, but not like a particular aspect of it, so the fork the open source project and add and remove the things they want to it (under their own forked project name. This goes on and on. Some projects die, and others take their place.

What this means, is that the user is left with a great amount of choice. The key, is finding and using what you personally like. Just like finding and using the Linux distribution you like. And just like distro hopping, you end up trying them all, and sticking to what you personally like the best.

Usually one or two rise to the top and become more popular than others. These will usually be the ones that work the best and have the best support. It’s the same everywhere in the Linux world—think of Desktop Environments. Gnome and KDE are usually the most popular choices, although there are many good alternatives too.

To put it in musical terms, liken OSes to synths:

MacOS is like a pre-wired synth—it does what it is meant to. It sounds great. But you have very little say over how it is put together. You are limited sonically to what is given.

Windows is like a semi-modular. You have some cables or options that MacOS doesn’t. It’s possibly a more popular option, because it gives the ability to do much more, and it’s not too difficult.

Linux is a grand, full-blown modular. You could simply have an oscillator, an envelope, and a filter, or you could have TONTO. The choice is up to you—make exactly what you want.

What it boils down to is coming up with your personal curated list of tools. I personally have a list, and I’ve done this for years. It changes constantly. I try to stick to the best supported and most reliable of everything. That’s probably why I have so few problems.

When looking for apps and tools, I often do searches to see what is available. Then I read people’s opinions on these programs. I can often narrow things down quite a bit. Look for tools that haven’t sat for years without updates. Look for tools that are reputed to be stable and have good support and documentation. Look for tools that try to follow established standards and aren’t looking to recreate the proverbial “wheel”. This will usually narrow things down to a couple. Then try those one or two or three out and decide for yourself what you like best. Then keep that one, remove the others, and add it to your personal curated list.

In time you will more closely have exactly what you want in an OS and software, than possible with any other OS.

Edit: just for fun, here’s TONTO:

[ghettosynth]

I know that I’m “speaking to the choir” by posting this here, but some may not know this, and those investigating Linux may find it comforting to learn that the terminal or command line is not needed as much as it used to be, in order to use Linux. Linux keeps getting easier and easier to use:

Not the Linux You Remember: 16 Every Day Tasks That No Longer Need the Terminal

https://itsfoss.com/no-longer-need-terminal/

This is a good list, and with respect to the questions from the poster above, most of this list is not really going to present many choices for people new to Linux. Frankly, if you're new to Linux and you don't know which container manager to choose, then you probably have no need for containers. What this list really shows is the extent to which you can manage desktop Linux without the command line if you want to today.

[audiojunkie]

I agree — that was the point of the article. But, but I seemed to gather that the question was regarding Linux tools and plugins as a whole (in general), ie word processing, raster graphics editing, desktop publishing, etc, rather than just this list. I tried to answer that question for all new users at the same time (that might read this thread and have the same questions—by explaining why there are so many options available, and how to know what to choose.

[Grizzellda]

Linux and options!

There is one core Linux, It is carefully, maybe even lovingly maintained by a few people.

As more folks get into Linux, I think Things will stabilize...like, I mean, all the options, more "Linux distros" that you could shake a stick at. Like audio software...KVR freaks prolly know this...too much? Gear acquisition syndrome? What synthesizer sound do I start with?

Dunno...I only have about a gazzilion sounds, but I think I need another synthesizer.

So, it might be kinda sick...

[ghettosynth]

I agree — that was the point of the article. But, but I seemed to gather that the question was regarding Linux tools and plugins as a whole (in general), ie word processing, raster graphics editing, desktop publishing, etc, rather than just this list. I tried to answer that question for all new users at the same time (that might read this thread and have the same questions—by explaining why there are so many options available, and how to know what to choose.

I did not mean to imply otherwise. You are a dedicated advocate. I'm more of an indifferent bystander willing to add a bit of affirmation from time to time.

One thing that will never go away though is the variety of open source choice for many applications, especially server based apps and command line apps. You kind of have to get used to that noise, it is a bit louder than the Win/Mac space. What's louder in the Win space is the endless collection of shit closed source apps. Further, nearly all of the standard choices, e.g., word processing and presentation tools that are available for Linux are also on Windows, so, in a very real sense, there is a lot of choice on Windows as well, it's just that only Linux users and cost-conscious users pay much attention.

[uOpt]

I don't mind the great variety of Linux tools as such.

However, many of these tools are half-baken and underengineered. Especially when it comes to edge cases, error handling and the like. In such cases it would clearly be better if the person-power used to make multiple half-baken utilities would have been combined into making one single more robust tool.

As you might know, I'm coming at the problem from the other direction, from FreeBSD where you usually have one tool to do things, and it often comes with the base OS. I'm not coming from Windows or Mac. The better focus in the base system is a major reason why I prefer FreeBSD.

The Linux situation comes down to the first 90% of any programming project being more fun than the other 90% to polish it and make it robust. That's why people rather make a new tool than improving on an existing one. The FreeBSD developers tend to have a cage fight over a utility but then end up improving one tool. Linux devs often avoid having to "mess" with other people's code, and that isn't always good.

[audiojunkie]

Interesting! I wasn't aware of your FreeBSD history. And I don't disagree with your assessment. I just take the bad with the good. FreeBSD is where I would go next, if Linux started to be like Windows and MacOS. What is it that you don't like about it?

[uOpt]

Interesting! I wasn't aware of your FreeBSD history. And I don't disagree with your assessment. I just take the bad with the good. FreeBSD is where I would go next, if Linux started to be like Windows and MacOS. What is it that you don't like about it?

Well, obviously I like FreeBSD overall. Disadvantages include: inability to run Docker and Kubernetes. Incomplete Linux emulation and less powerful Wine, little messy with Web browsers since Google doesn't provide prebuilt binaries.With most laptops (not all) shorter battery life.

[j_e_g]

]
Why do there have to be dozens of tools for the same thing?
Same with the no-terminal link you posted. It always lists multiple GUI tools. How is a n00b gonna choose?

Yep, that's a problem. But it's not the "big picture problem".

The major problem is twofold. Linux developers are constantly throwing away stuff that works, and replacing it with stuff that does things slightly differently. and NOT DOCUMENTING THE SOFTWARE FOR ENDUSERS.

That's why linux users need to maintain a constantly changing list of what does and doesn't work since what was previously working is perpetually getting broken. And since the author of the software seldom provides docs, you have to wade through the entire internet for info, and do trail and error tests to see if a given information source is uptodate (or describing an older, obsolete version that's no longer applicable).

It's not uncommon to spend months collating/evaluating all these sources, and finally getting a setup that works for you, only to have it stop working when you do a monthly os update. Oops, you just replaced PipeWire with the brand new (but still mostly the same except for the parts that no longer work) "The Linux server that replaces OSS, Jack, PulseAudio, AND now PipeWire".

Linux devs don't do backward-compatibility (well), nor documentation. You're on your own. Some people call that "freedom". Ironically, most musicians pay to avoid that version of "freedom".

[audiojunkie]

@j_e_g is just bitter because he can’t bring himself to move to Pipewire, and still uses the old JACK server.

[j_e_g]

@j_e_g is just bitter because he can’t bring himself to move to Pipewire

Correction. The fact I can't bring myself to move to Pipewire gives me great happiness, as it's shite. Anyway, after a recent update, it suddenly gives a failure when I try to open the jack server, and I get no sound at all. (I'm used to audio failures on linux). I;m gonna reinstall a distro that doesn't include that crap.

still uses the old JACK server.

Hell no. I use ALSA MMAP. Everything after that has been half-baked dung. If ALSA had actually been documented (it wasn't), Linux would have stable audio support today, But Linux devs don't do docs, so it all went to hell.

If BSD ever replaces OSS with ALSA, and stops there, they'll have better audio support than Linux.

[uOpt]

The major problem is twofold. Linux developers are constantly throwing away stuff that works, and replacing it with stuff that does things slightly differently. and NOT DOCUMENTING THE SOFTWARE FOR ENDUSERS.

That's why linux users need to maintain a constantly changing list of what does and doesn't work since what was previously working is perpetually getting broken. And since the author of the software seldom provides docs, you have to wade through the entire internet for info, and do trail and error tests to see if a given information source is uptodate (or describing an older, obsolete version that's no longer applicable).

That's precisely why I prefer FreeBSD. Subsystems in FreeBSD are documented in manpages, and those ship with the system. So the documentation that you read actually version-matches the software you have right now.

No looking up on the web and getting newer docs than your software is.

It's not uncommon to spend months collating/evaluating all these sources, and finally getting a setup that works for you, only to have it stop working when you do a monthly os update. Oops, you just replaced PipeWire with the brand new (but still mostly the same except for the parts that no longer work) "The Linux server that replaces OSS, Jack, PulseAudio, AND now PipeWire".

Linux devs don't do backward-compatibility (well), nor documentation. You're on your own. Some people call that "freedom". Ironically, most musicians pay to avoid that version of "freedom".

FreeBSD has a guiding "principle of least surprise". That's user-friendly.

[uOpt]

I'm slowly getting an installation with pipewire instead of jackd up and running. For me it works well, in fact I would call it a jack clone with built-in pulseaudio. My command and control tools all work.

[glokraw]

Determine what you want to accomplish, acquire the tools and skillz you need, and isolate the tools from unwanted changes.

If greatly differing tools are needed for various tasks, acquire those tools, and keep them both separate from the others, and isolated from unwanted changes.

Keep an environment or two for testing new tools, and don't mess with the existing ones.

Enjoy life, and be productive.