Why Linux is Becoming Impossible for Audio Developers to Ignore

[Tiles]

Weak.

For a moment i had the illusion that you are interested in a discussion. I will not repeat this mistake. I’m not going to continue this in this direction.

Have a good one.

[TechHaus]

Weak.

For a moment i had the illusion that you are interested in a discussion. I will not repeat this mistake. I’m not going to continue this in this direction.

Have a good one.

The reason I called your response weak is because it felt like word salad after getting caught straw manning or exaggerating...possibly...trolling.

"ma workflows"
"you can't teach this old dog new tricks"
"I couldn't possibly take 1 hour to learn something new"
etc.

You couldn't name a task! (EDIT: I'll give you a freebie. Drag and drop sucks on Linux! Many developers just omit it completely and make you go into a file browser to do tasks where you would just drag and drop audio on Mac or Windows.)

Now I'm super curious about these tasks that you can't do on Linux. You must be doing some wild work.

Anyway, peace be with you.

[audiojunkie]

And this is exactly why Linux is largely ignored by many developers.

Do you have evidence that this is "exactly" why Linux is largely ignored by many developers?

That's fair, nope. It's an opinion.

You've been demanding evidence and numbers, so I'd like to see some on this aspect. I personally haven't found any.

Wait. Did I? Mostly I have been providing them, not demanding I think?

You are correct. My apologies. I remembered incorrectly. It was Eyecloud that was claiming statistician knowledge and wanting numbers. Sorry about that.

[ghettosynth]

Weak.

For a moment i had the illusion that you are interested in a discussion. I will not repeat this mistake. I’m not going to continue this in this direction.

Have a good one.

The reason I called your response weak is because it felt like word salad after getting caught straw manning or exaggerating...possibly...trolling.

"ma workflows"
"you can't teach this old dog new tricks"
"I couldn't possibly take 1 hour to learn something new"
etc.

You couldn't name a task! (EDIT: I'll give you a freebie. Drag and drop sucks on Linux! Many developers just omit it completely and make you go into a file browser to do tasks where you would just drag and drop audio on Mac or Windows.)

Now I'm super curious about these tasks that you can't do on Linux. You must be doing some wild work.

Anyway, peace be with you.

Before I moved OTB, nearly 100% of my workflow wouldn't have worked reliably in Linux because of copy protection headaches. I'm not going to go down some tedious windows on linux workflow to get NI authorization working on Linux (e.g., Reaktor).

Now much of that experimentation is either done with BitWig, or in hardware. BitWig does not replace Reaktor, but my style of music and production has changed such that, in essence, my modular does.

[audiojunkie]

I avoid any vendor-dependent copy protection (ie challenge response and the like) for two major reasons:

1. Future proofing -- my measurement of good copy protection is any copy protection that allows me to back up my applications and plugins to an archive, along with the authorization, and at some future date, even after the company is no more or support has been dropped, install the software and authorize it on a new machine.

2. I'm against any copy protection that hassles the honest more than the pirates. In my mind, it not only prevents future proofing, but it also is a form of disrespect to the honest customers that buy the developer's software. Why hassle us who paid for the software, more than the pirates that will likely never pay for anything anyway? It's wrong.

Now, to be clear: I am NOT against copy protection. I am perfectly fine with copy protection that respects me as a paying customer. And it has been prove over and over that this type of copy protection can be successfully provided and the business can be successful. U-he uses an acceptable form of copy protection. So does Plogue. Audio Damage doesn't even use copy protection. There are many developers and companies that do respect the honest, so why should I purchase software from the companies that don't?

I maintain a community supported list of such developers. I've had several developers even contact me directly because they would like to be added to the list, and they see it as an advantage.

For the curious, the thread is here:

viewtopic.php?t=612966

[ghettosynth]

I avoid any vendor-dependent copy protection (ie challenge response and the like) for two major reasons:

1. Future proofing -- my measurement of good copy protection is any copy protection that allows me to back up my applications and plugins to an archive, along with the authorization, and at some future date, even after the company is no more or support has been dropped, install the software and authorize it on a new machine.

2. I'm against any copy protection that hassles the honest more than the pirates. In my mind, it not only prevents future proofing, but it also is a form of disrespect to the honest customers that buy the developer's software. Why hassle us who paid for the software, more than the pirates that will likely never pay for anything anyway? It's wrong.

Now, to be clear: I am NOT against copy protection. I am perfectly fine with copy protection that respects me as a paying customer. And it has been prove over and over that this type of copy protection can be successfully provided and the business can be successful. U-he uses an acceptable form of copy protection. So does Plogue. Audio Damage doesn't even use copy protection. There are many developers and companies that do respect the honest, so why should I purchase software from the companies that don't?

I maintain a community supported list of such developers. I've had several developers even contact me directly because they would like to be added to the list, and they see it as an advantage.

For the curious, the thread is here:

viewtopic.php?t=612966

Great. I would really like to see the much smaller list of companies that also support Linux in the same top post. That's work, I know, so I'm not trying to offload it to you, but only you can edit the post.

[audiojunkie]

I avoid any vendor-dependent copy protection (ie challenge response and the like) for two major reasons:

1. Future proofing -- my measurement of good copy protection is any copy protection that allows me to back up my applications and plugins to an archive, along with the authorization, and at some future date, even after the company is no more or support has been dropped, install the software and authorize it on a new machine.

2. I'm against any copy protection that hassles the honest more than the pirates. In my mind, it not only prevents future proofing, but it also is a form of disrespect to the honest customers that buy the developer's software. Why hassle us who paid for the software, more than the pirates that will likely never pay for anything anyway? It's wrong.

Now, to be clear: I am NOT against copy protection. I am perfectly fine with copy protection that respects me as a paying customer. And it has been prove over and over that this type of copy protection can be successfully provided and the business can be successful. U-he uses an acceptable form of copy protection. So does Plogue. Audio Damage doesn't even use copy protection. There are many developers and companies that do respect the honest, so why should I purchase software from the companies that don't?

I maintain a community supported list of such developers. I've had several developers even contact me directly because they would like to be added to the list, and they see it as an advantage.

For the curious, the thread is here:

viewtopic.php?t=612966

Great. I would really like to see the much smaller list of companies that also support Linux in the same top post. That's work, I know, so I'm not trying to offload it to you, but only you can edit the post.

Everything has been pretty much a community effort, but another user is keeping a 3 OS list of audio plugins and software. It may not be ideal, but you could compare the 3 OS list and find what you want, and then check against my list to confirm copy protection. Hopefully that will help. Many of us make sure to only buy software that supports all three OSes. Here's the thread:

viewtopic.php?p=8265668#p8265668

[TechHaus]

Dang I was just researching the Kazrog amp sims and I ran into a post on another forum asking if he would do a series of pedal in-app purchases.

The response:

There will be more pedals and FX added to the AmpCraft line over time. The thing I'd like to avoid, though, is any kind of "phone home" scenario where the plugins connect to the cloud to check licenses.

These are tools meant for both studio and live usage, and as such are designed to be able to run offline without fear of sudden de-authorization. It's a central part of the core philosophy of Kazrog - software you purchase should function just like hardware you purchase - you own it!

So, while I'm flattered by the suggestion, and have plans to do many different pedal emulations, I want to go about this in such a way that doesn't burden users with phoning home, dongles, or other inhumane machinations of DRM.

INHUMANE! I love it. Buying this amp sim.

Also was over at Darkpalace.studio checking out their new mega clipper thing...

YOU BUY IT, YOU OWN IT

DRM Free. No Activations. No Data Collection. As it should be.