Future of Windows in pro audio

[PAK]

I don’t really agree with that characterisation. Describing this as “ethically questionable” already imposes a moral frame that feels stronger than the facts support. What happened was fairly typical business behaviour for the era: opportunistic, pragmatic, and not especially unusual.

The same applies to examples like Bars and Pipes. Acquisitions followed by discontinuation are common, often driven by shifting priorities rather than intent to suppress a product. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not particularly sinister, nor specific to Microsoft.

Well, I’m not sure something being “typical” makes a behaviour any better. But Kildall himself moved on from it, and remained fairly positive.. Soo

Re: Bars And Pipes.. I don’t think the intent was usually to buy a company to do nothing with it. And I never implied it was behaviour unique to Microsoft. Though I’m also not sure how many would argue Microsoft’s motives were always the best, and also not frequently motivated by their desires to limit their competitors in various ways..

I don’t think that explanation really holds up either. Disagreement over priorities exists everywhere, including in strictly commercial environments. It’s not unique to free or volunteer-driven ecosystems

You’re raising many points which should (hopefully) be self-evident. In a commercial setting management makes decisions which must be followed if people want to put food on the table or have a roof over their head. The dynamics do tend to change when something is about basic survival. Of course similar scenarios can happen in non-commercial settings too, but a commercial product usually can’t be forked (etc) if they disagree

Re: Linux DAW. As I said previously, where’s a benevolent billionaire when you need one?

[audiojunkie]

Yes. Their ticket, to the big time, was arrived at via their ethically questionable dealings with IBM and Gary Kildall. The reality not being one of Bond supervillains, but a grubby (and more familiar) story involving sharp business practices. This, infamously, included buying companies only to do nothing with them (The music software Bars And Pipes being one such example.. )

I don’t really agree with that characterisation. Describing this as “ethically questionable” already imposes a moral frame that feels stronger than the facts support. What happened was fairly typical business behaviour for the era: opportunistic, pragmatic, and not especially unusual.

The same applies to examples like Bars and Pipes. Acquisitions followed by discontinuation are common, often driven by shifting priorities rather than intent to suppress a product. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not particularly sinister, nor specific to Microsoft.

Hmm, I really don’t think it’s a big factor I think its biggest challenge is, once you free people from strictly commercial constraints, many will disagree on what their time should be spent on. Linux is unlikely to have ended up where it did had it not been for Torvalds role in focusing efforts. And, unfortunately, the needs of DAW users are fairly far down most lists..

I don’t think that explanation really holds up either. Disagreement over priorities exists everywhere, including in strictly commercial environments. It’s not unique to free or volunteer-driven ecosystems.

The more relevant issue is that many professional use cases simply don’t align well with how most Linux development is incentivised and funded. DAWs aren’t “low priority” because of a lack of focus, but because developing and supporting them properly is expensive, unglamorous, and offers little return for most contributors. Linux is not a market in the usual sense, and developing for Linux typically requires significantly more effort than for Windows.

Torvalds’ role was crucial for the kernel, but that kind of focus never extended to the wider desktop and application ecosystem. And that matters, because Torvalds has been very explicit for many years about the practical shortcomings of Linux on the desktop. Like here.



If that pragmatism had carried more weight at the distribution level, some decisions might well have been more user-facing and less ideologically driven.

Still digging up drivel about Linux, I see. We’ve gone the rounds about this before.

For those who don’t know. Tiles likes to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, while claiming that he knows everything. Yet, for a person who supposedly knows everything, he’s surprisingly behind in understanding Linux.

Go look back at other Linux threads he’s commented in, here at KVR, to see how badly out of his element he is. Or watch and wait for him to repeat the out of date hogwash that he always does—including that decade-plus year-old video. What is most frustrating is that people who don’t know Linux that well might actually believe him.

By the way, you know how you can identify a Linux hater? They will be the ones spouting useless outdated dribble, and not knowing (or refusing to acknowledge) the new technology improvements that have taken place since the Torvolds video that they love to constantly play for anyone who will give them a chance.

They can’t walk away, and they can’t leave it alone.

[lunardigs]

Well, not to sound unkindly either, but ......
Some possibly incorrect assumptions you might have could be:

- That the governments of the world aren't in league with each other--especially the so-called "west"
- Linux hasn't been infiltrated by the likes of DARPA, or that efforts to hijack it haven't taken place already or continue
- That the nefarious aim of Microsoft upon the world and whichever governments is to "pull the plug"
- Conspiracy = false, untrue, impossible, or even silly sounding
- And, that things are as they appear--especially our alleged "history"

I’m not dismissing the idea that power structures exist or that governments and corporations pursue their own interests. That’s hardly controversial.

The problem is that what you list here are not arguments but unfalsifiable assumptions. Once the premise is “everything may be secretly coordinated and nothing is as it appears,” there is no meaningful way to reason about concrete technologies, risks, or real-world outcomes.

At that point, any claim becomes immune to evidence, and discussion stops being analytical and turns into belief.

If we want to talk about Linux, Microsoft, or software reliability in practice, we have to stick to things that can actually be observed, verified, and compared.

Well, if your purpose for facts and evidence is some kind of utility, then you might be missing what's actually true. Truth doesn't have a purpose by itself.
Just saying.

This notion though that "everything is secretly coordinated" is another thing. First of all, no one here is saying that--I don't think? Right? I'm certainly not. Remember, you mentioned the word conspiracy first.

Regardless though, just because Microsoft was created by IBM, who was created by DARPA who sponsors and partners with them both on countless projects to this very day, doesn't mean that someone like myself who points this out is a 'conspiracy guy' ... Right?

[Tiles]

Yes. Their ticket, to the big time, was arrived at via their ethically questionable dealings with IBM and Gary Kildall. The reality not being one of Bond supervillains, but a grubby (and more familiar) story involving sharp business practices. This, infamously, included buying companies only to do nothing with them (The music software Bars And Pipes being one such example.. )

I don’t really agree with that characterisation. Describing this as “ethically questionable” already imposes a moral frame that feels stronger than the facts support. What happened was fairly typical business behaviour for the era: opportunistic, pragmatic, and not especially unusual.

The same applies to examples like Bars and Pipes. Acquisitions followed by discontinuation are common, often driven by shifting priorities rather than intent to suppress a product. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not particularly sinister, nor specific to Microsoft.

Hmm, I really don’t think it’s a big factor I think its biggest challenge is, once you free people from strictly commercial constraints, many will disagree on what their time should be spent on. Linux is unlikely to have ended up where it did had it not been for Torvalds role in focusing efforts. And, unfortunately, the needs of DAW users are fairly far down most lists..

I don’t think that explanation really holds up either. Disagreement over priorities exists everywhere, including in strictly commercial environments. It’s not unique to free or volunteer-driven ecosystems.

The more relevant issue is that many professional use cases simply don’t align well with how most Linux development is incentivised and funded. DAWs aren’t “low priority” because of a lack of focus, but because developing and supporting them properly is expensive, unglamorous, and offers little return for most contributors. Linux is not a market in the usual sense, and developing for Linux typically requires significantly more effort than for Windows.

Torvalds’ role was crucial for the kernel, but that kind of focus never extended to the wider desktop and application ecosystem. And that matters, because Torvalds has been very explicit for many years about the practical shortcomings of Linux on the desktop. Like here.



If that pragmatism had carried more weight at the distribution level, some decisions might well have been more user-facing and less ideologically driven.

Still digging up drivel about Linux, I see. We’ve gone the rounds about this before.

For those who don’t know. Tiles likes to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, while claiming that he knows everything. Yet, for a person who supposedly knows everything, he’s surprisingly behind in understanding Linux.

Go look back at other Linux threads he’s commented in, here at KVR, to see how badly out of his element he is. Or watch and wait for him to repeat the out of date hogwash that he always does—including that decade-plus year-old video. What is most frustrating is that people who don’t know Linux that well might actually believe him.

By the way, you know how you can identify a Linux hater? They will be the ones spouting useless outdated dribble, and not knowing (or refusing to acknowledge) the new technology improvements that have taken place since the Torvolds video that they love to constantly play for anyone who will give them a chance.

They can’t walk away, and they can’t leave it alone.

Interesting how criticism automatically becomes “fear, uncertainty and doubt” as soon as it’s inconvenient. Disagreeing with Linux advocacy narratives does not make someone a “Linux hater”, it just means not confusing ideology with practical reality.

Repeating “things have improved” is not an argument either. Of course they have. The relevant question is whether they have improved enough for real world professional use cases, and for many people, they still have not. Especially not in the music area. That is not outdated hogwash, it is lived experience.

Also, the moment a discussion turns into personal attacks and character assessments, it usually signals that the actual arguments have run out. Dismissing a position by attacking the person holding it does not make the position wrong.

For what it’s worth, I use both Linux and Windows. So by that definition, which group do I belong to now, the “Linux hater” or the “true believer”?

What actually hurts Linux adoption is not criticism, but the reflex to label every critical voice as ignorant or malicious. That attitude does far more damage than any decade old video ever could. And this decade old video still shows all the problems that i have, as a user and as a developer. None of it is fixed.

Written at and sent from Ubuntu on my dual boot system.

[Tiles]

I don’t really agree with that characterisation. Describing this as “ethically questionable” already imposes a moral frame that feels stronger than the facts support. What happened was fairly typical business behaviour for the era: opportunistic, pragmatic, and not especially unusual.

The same applies to examples like Bars and Pipes. Acquisitions followed by discontinuation are common, often driven by shifting priorities rather than intent to suppress a product. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not particularly sinister, nor specific to Microsoft.

Well, I’m not sure something being “typical” makes a behaviour any better. But Kildall himself moved on from it, and remained fairly positive.. Soo

Re: Bars And Pipes.. I don’t think the intent was usually to buy a company to do nothing with it. And I never implied it was behaviour unique to Microsoft. Though I’m also not sure how many would argue Microsoft’s motives were always the best, and also not frequently motivated by their desires to limit their competitors in various ways..

I don’t think that explanation really holds up either. Disagreement over priorities exists everywhere, including in strictly commercial environments. It’s not unique to free or volunteer-driven ecosystems

You’re raising many points which should (hopefully) be self-evident. In a commercial setting management makes decisions which must be followed if people want to put food on the table or have a roof over their head. The dynamics do tend to change when something is about basic survival. Of course similar scenarios can happen in non-commercial settings too, but a commercial product usually can’t be forked (etc) if they disagree

Re: Linux DAW. As I said previously, where’s a benevolent billionaire when you need one?

Well, i am no billionaire, but convince me. It would not be my first big project

I agree that commercial environments introduce different dynamics, especially when people’s livelihoods are involved. Open source projects are not without hierarchy either. Most have maintainers and clear decision makers, just with less formal authority.

Regarding the idea of “simply forking”: from my own experience, I have maintained a forked project for over ten years and still do. In reality, projects are not easily forked, and the larger they get, the less likely a fork will outperform the original. If they survive at all.

Just look at the sprawling landscape of Linux distributions and ask yourself which one really is the best. Then ask yourself what a single distribution that bundles all these forces would even look like. That is exactly what a commercial product does. It bundles the forces and aims for the solution with the greatest success in the market. Most open source projects do not follow the market, they follow the maintainer. And anyone who wants to take a different approach is welcome to fork and explore their own path. Which then again splits the forces ...

[Tiles]

Re: Linux DAW. As I said previously, where’s a benevolent billionaire when you need one?

Well, i am no billionaire, but convince me. It would not be my first big project

This has led me to a little thought experiment with ChatGPT. Let's say we wanted to recreate FL Studio in Linux.

The culprit here is the required specialists. These people don't grow on trees. But let's for one moment assume that you have them all.

Code: Select all

FL Studio–Level Linux DAW

Team: 30 full-time

17 Developers/Tech: Audio/DSP, MIDI, GUI, Plugin Support, Linux Integration, DevOps, QA
13 Non-Tech/Support: Product Management, Community, Marketing, Documentation, User Support, Graphics, Legal

Timeline:

Alpha (Core Engine, MIDI, Basic GUI): 3–4 years
Beta (Plugin Support, Mixer, Automation, Advanced GUI): 5–7 years
Stable / Pro Features (Stability, Presets, Performance, Plugins): 8–10 years
Marketing, Documentation, Community Growth: 10–12 years

Total Duration: 12–15 years realistic

Costs:
Dev/Tech salaries: ~€1.7M/year → €20–26M over 12–15 years
Non-Tech/Support: ~€0.91M/year → €11–14M over 12–15 years
Hardware, servers, marketing, legal: ~€1–2M
Total Cost: ~€32–41M

So 30 specialists with between 30 and 40 million development cost and 15 years development duration is realistic. Followed by all the years of maintenance and further development. A minimal version (fewer features) could be done in 6–8 years at ~€10–15M. But we want to compete.

Any takers?

[VariKusBrainZ]

Or you could use the cross platform web version

[Tiles]

The idea is not bad. Unfortunately there is none. FL Mobile is not natively functional on Linux. And it is also no substitute for the full desktop version.

[FrettedSynth]

Re: Linux DAW. As I said previously, where’s a benevolent billionaire when you need one?

Well, i am no billionaire, but convince me. It would not be my first big project

This has led me to a little thought experiment with ChatGPT. Let's say we wanted to recreate FL Studio in Linux.

The culprit here is the required specialists. These people don't grow on trees. But let's for one moment assume that you have them all.

Code: Select all

FL Studio–Level Linux DAW

Team: 30 full-time

17 Developers/Tech: Audio/DSP, MIDI, GUI, Plugin Support, Linux Integration, DevOps, QA
13 Non-Tech/Support: Product Management, Community, Marketing, Documentation, User Support, Graphics, Legal

Timeline:

Alpha (Core Engine, MIDI, Basic GUI): 3–4 years
Beta (Plugin Support, Mixer, Automation, Advanced GUI): 5–7 years
Stable / Pro Features (Stability, Presets, Performance, Plugins): 8–10 years
Marketing, Documentation, Community Growth: 10–12 years

Total Duration: 12–15 years realistic

Costs:
Dev/Tech salaries: ~€1.7M/year → €20–26M over 12–15 years
Non-Tech/Support: ~€0.91M/year → €11–14M over 12–15 years
Hardware, servers, marketing, legal: ~€1–2M
Total Cost: ~€32–41M

So 30 specialists with between 30 and 40 million development cost and 15 years development duration is realistic. Followed by all the years of maintenance and further development. A minimal version (fewer features) could be done in 6–8 years at ~€10–15M. But we want to compete.

Any takers?

Bitwig, Reaper and Waveform must have some pretty big pockets if your chat is correct.

[Tiles]

Yeah, amazing how much time and money goes into developing a software

The DAW's you mention are in development since many years already. And back in the days it wasn't so much features than nowadays. These features were added over time.

Don't nail me at exact values. And the current employees are always just a snapshot. And companies like Avid does not only develop Pro Tools. And i rely here at ChatGPT, which may or may not be accurate. But this is what ChatGPT says:
Avid has around 1500 employees
Ableton several hundret.
Steinberg has around 200 employees.
Imageline is in the scope of 50 people.
Bitwig has around 30 employees.
Same for Tracktion and its Waveform. Around 30.
And finally rumours are that Chockos Reaper has only two core developers. But there are collaborators. And you can also buy frameworks.

[FrettedSynth]

Yet two companies with around 30 employees and one with around 2 employees were able to make Linux feasible? I'll stick with what I can see and use, the rest can chat with GPT.

Windows is a nice os and will be around for a long while, macos also! I've used both over the last 40 years. But Linux is not all the doom and gloom you portray. 100% Linux here for the past three years or so, it just runs. Plugins are becoming more available, picked a couple Kazrog plugins this weekend they sound great.

[Tiles]

First let me correct a thing here. Linux was not made feasible by a handful of small companies. It has been developed and maintained over decades by thousands of developers worldwide, including major distributions, communities, and countless individual contributors.

And Please do not put words into my mouth. I am not saying Linux is doom and gloom. It is just not a full alternative to Windows and most likely never will be. Much is still missing and the quirks and limits you seem to handle easily are exactly the issues that make Linux tricky for most users.

Linux is not the holy grail it is sometimes painted as and pretending it is plug and play like Windows or macOS is misleading. If it works for you fine but that does not change the bigger picture.

In the end what matters is what works. But that is exactly where Linux fails again and again even at the simplest things. Shortcuts, autologin, sudo here, sudo there, always being forced to the bash, software that does not work, drivers that do not work. The list of quirks and problems I have experienced over the last twenty years could fill a library of books. Anyone can browse the Linux forums and see these issues discussed in detail. I am always surprised when users claim they never encounter any of these problems. Either they do not actually use the OS or they are not telling the truth.

Just look at the picture. And no I do not need help here. I know how to fix it. It's just, this is a vanilla Ubuntu install and it should just work. I am even lucky this time only a handful of problems. Debian 12 did not even load the Gnome desktop at install. And don't get me started at other distros like Rocky where the continue button was offscreen.

As I said before the issue is that I must be able to do my job. At the moment there are just two of many tasks where Linux really excels for me. The rest of my work simply cannot be done on Linux.

[FrettedSynth]

Only made it through your bs first paragraph, we were talking daws not os. The rest I'm guessing is the same bla, bla.
Love ya Tiles, peace

[FrettedSynth]

Oops double post

[lunardigs]

Wow, lot of typing today, huh?

I'm just glad I fully divested from Windows years ago--like 2010 or something. My decisions has only appreciated since then and I see no scenario where I'd ever go back.
All these little things being debated here are kinda stupid in the end once you realize the difference.