Future of Windows in pro audio

[uOpt]

One nice thing about Macs is that, like Linux, they use BASH on the command line. So Linux users can feel right at home.

Just to explain, although bash would be better (zsh is not 100% bourne/POSIX shell compatible, word splitting is different) Apple picked zsh because bash is GPLed and zsh is not.

[dellboy]

So I have been using my new Mac Mini M4 for two or three weeks, and its been a disaster so far. Constant external drive disconnects, endless "beach-balls" that cause me to reboot, and just fatigue from trying to learn a new OS. I have temporarily gone back to my PC laptop and it feels like coming home. The strange thing about the external drive disconnect problem is that it happens with my newly formatted "APFS" drive? My Windows formatted external "NTFS" drive works great on MacOS?

[jamcat]

Lol, I love how "Linux" is constantly disparaged for what software won't run on it. As if "Linux" decided to block Camelot Pro or something.

It's legit complaint, I have hundreds of plugins that almost to a one run on Mac and Windows, but only a few dozen at most run natively on Linux. I've got 7 DAWs on this Mac only two run in Linux, 6 run on windows.

You're limited in choices on Linux, whether that is the "fault" of Linux isn't even part of the equation, it's just a fact.

So be it, but that's not a 'it's Linux's fault' thing. It's the fault of those beloved developers who don't care about Linux--and that's to say there's even some kind of fault involved. Personally, I don't care about those developers who don't build for Linux. My money can simply remain in my wallet.

Furthermore, this isn't a strength of Windows; Windows merely has a legacy and a monopoly currently. Which like everything else is temporal, and dependent upon the next thing they do--right or wrong--hence this thread.

It’s pretty simple: developers lose money by developing for Linux. They make money by developing for Mac and Windows.

So if it’s anyone’s fault, blame Linux’s users for being cheap and unpopular and thinking Linux = free software that entitles them to a free ride.

[audiojunkie]

Lol, I love how "Linux" is constantly disparaged for what software won't run on it. As if "Linux" decided to block Camelot Pro or something.

It's legit complaint, I have hundreds of plugins that almost to a one run on Mac and Windows, but only a few dozen at most run natively on Linux. I've got 7 DAWs on this Mac only two run in Linux, 6 run on windows.

You're limited in choices on Linux, whether that is the "fault" of Linux isn't even part of the equation, it's just a fact.

So be it, but that's not a 'it's Linux's fault' thing. It's the fault of those beloved developers who don't care about Linux--and that's to say there's even some kind of fault involved. Personally, I don't care about those developers who don't build for Linux. My money can simply remain in my wallet.

Furthermore, this isn't a strength of Windows; Windows merely has a legacy and a monopoly currently. Which like everything else is temporal, and dependent upon the next thing they do--right or wrong--hence this thread.

It’s pretty simple: developers lose money by developing for Linux. They make money by developing for Mac and Windows.

So if it’s anyone’s fault, blame Linux’s users for being cheap and unpopular and thinking Linux = free software that entitles them to a free ride.

That's a pretty biased wide-spectrum stereotype, don't you think? Have you got proof to go along with the stated facts that developers (I'm assuming that you mean developers in general, based upon how you worded your sentence) lose money by developing for Linux, and they make money by developing for Mac and Windows? I've seen several Mac and Windows developers go under, and I've seen some pretty successful Linux developers. And where's the evidence that we are all cheap and think that "Linux = free software that entitles them to a free ride?" Have you seen me demanding that developers give me software FOR FREE? I think most people will agree that when I have contacted developers, I have asked that they support Linux, but I've never asked for anything for free. Go ahead. I've been here 23 years. Go back and search KVR to see if I've ever once asked for Linux software for free. The right thing to do would be to walk back your comments, or state that you were joking. Doubling down on those statements won't make you look any more correct.

[jamcat]

So Linux isn't all about open source free software now?

Of course it is, and no amount of gaslighting will change that perception. But the very thing that makes Linux desirable to the people who use it also makes it completely undesirable and commercially unviable to software companies trying to run a business. Linux is and always will be a platform for free, designer knockoffs. And that is the standard Linux users expect.

[audiojunkie]

So Linux isn't all about open source free software now?

Of course it is, and no amount of gaslighting will change that perception. But the very thing that makes Linux desirable to the people who use it also makes it completely undesirable and commercially unviable to software companies trying to run a business. Linux is and always will be a platform for free, designer knockoffs. And that is the standard Linux users expect.

Rather than wasting time writing the same thing over and over, I will simply state this: The English word is ambiguous, because there are two meanings of "Free": Gratis and Libre. The idea is that open source code is libre, but not necessarily gratis. Or as Richard Stallman has put it: free as in free speech, not as in free beer, referring to the meaning of free as freedom rather than price. Here, go read this thread, and then come back and talk to me:

viewtopic.php?t=627719

Once we are "on the same page", as far as semantics go, we can discuss this further.

[jamcat]

If it is libre then it also must be gratis, by the nature of it. You can't publish all of your code and still prevent anyone from building it.

[audiojunkie]

If it is libre then it also must be gratis, by the nature of it. You can't publish all of your code and still prevent anyone from building it.

You are still misunderstanding. The idea behind open source was never about not being able to make money off of it, it was about being able to access the code. Most open source businesses (including the commercial Linux distro companies), provide the source code for free. They charge for development, compiling of binaries, education and technical support, but the source code is given for free. And you are free to compile it if you desire. It's the knuckle-heads that think Open Source is gratis that makes linux users look bad by not understanding how things are supposed to work. The code is libre, but it is perfectly normal to charge money and run a business off of it. And those of us who are real linux users understand the true meaning behind Gratis and Libre, and don't mind paying for their software.

[jamcat]

And you think audio companies, who spend millions to protect their software with iLok, are going to publish their source code?

You think Lexicon and Eventide and Celemony are going to publish the code for all their algorithms?



This might work for a free word processor knockoff, but it's never going to fly for audio software that is full of trade secrets and proprietary algorithms, not to mention custom copy-protection.

[audiojunkie]

And you think audio companies, who spend millions to protect their software with iLok, are going to publish their source code?

You think Lexicon and Eventide and Celemony are going to publish the code for all their algorithms?



This might work for a free word processor knockoff, but it's never going to fly for audio software that is full of trade secrets and proprietary algorithms, not to mention custom copy-protection.

You still aren't getting it. The open source movement and Linux, which is built from the open source movement, doesn't mean that everything that runs on Linux has to be free. It just means that Linux was built as open source, and other open source applications exist. It is perfectly normal to run closed source, commercial code on an open source platform like Linux. I certainly didn't get my U-he software for free, I paid for it.

[jamcat]

Perhaps not everything on Linux has to be free. But it's pretty hard to sell copy-protected audio software on an open source, free software platform with a near zero audio marketplace. You can be sure that u-he spent more money in the form of man-hours porting to Linux than it will ever make from selling on Linux.

[audiojunkie]

Perhaps not everything on Linux has to be free. But it's pretty hard to sell copy-protected audio software on an open source, free software platform with a near zero audio marketplace. You can be sure that u-he spent more money in the form of man-hours porting to Linux than it will ever make from selling on Linux.

Aside from open source and freeware applications (Open Source and Freeware are different, by the way), every commercial program that is out there uses copy protection. Well, that's not true. Some don't--for example Audio Damage don't. But most do, and there is very little difference between what is sold and copy protected for Windows and MacOS and Linux. Linux is just another computing platform, just like Windows and MacOS. The only difference, is that it grew and developed out of the Open Source movement. But it's just a computer platform like any other. And yearly, more and more users (and developers) are discovering and moving to it.

[BBFG#]

Perhaps not everything on Linux has to be free. But it's pretty hard to sell copy-protected audio software on an open source, free software platform with a near zero audio marketplace. You can be sure that u-he spent more money in the form of man-hours porting to Linux than it will ever make from selling on Linux.

The same could be said about arpeggiators...

What scares MS and Apple is "Open Source". I almost bet they've got a team of people figuring out how they can use the term for the market while never even coming close to delivering it.

[jamcat]

Yes, but that now brings us to the point that there is near zero market for audio software on Linux, which means audio developers lose money for developing by a platform with no market for their software, and a tiny non-tech userbase that is generally hostile towards the idea of copy protection or paying for software.

[audiojunkie]

The sad thing is that most people don't understand Open Source. They've heard the term, and equate it to mean that everything is libre, and no one pays for anything. There are even a lot of Linux users (most of them new to linux) that don't understand the true idea behind Open Source. That's why so many people not involved with it think that it's Gratis AND Libre, because of the English word, "Free".