Why Linux is Becoming Impossible for Audio Developers to Ignore

[keys_au1]

Intersting figures from the Reaper Developers regarding deployment of Reaper DAW, based on the user base data.

"currently about 80% Windows, 16% macOS, 3% linux, 1% TRSDOS"

[EyeCloud]

TRSDOS? Do they have Amish users or something?

[audiojunkie]

You don’t need to compile it. You can get a copy from the developer. He open sourced the code, and only charges a fee to download the binary. It’s available on his site.

you still need to 'make" it though, stop playing semantics to support your theme!

There is no "installer" version at this point. the developer even states that on git hub!

Why are you so bloody argumentative? Is being right all the time an issue for you?

Because you are wrong. Here, go to this link and pay the man money. He'll give you the latest compiled version: https://kushview.net/product/element/

Or you could go here and get an older version compiled for free: https://kushview.net/element/download/

Why is it that when I try to help people, they bad mouth me and don't believe what I say? All I've ever tried to do was help you.

As I've tried to tell you before, the developer uses an Open Source business model--just like Ardour does. The software is open source and available for anyone to use, compile, improve-upon, etc. The only thing he charges for, is for compiling the software and providing a binary. You pay the man, and he gives you the binary. I can't be more straight forward and explain it better than this. If you don't get it after all this, I don't know what to say.

EDIT: I am going to try one more time to explain it. I sought the help of AI to try to explain it better in layman's terms:

The developer isn't selling the software itself in the traditional sense. He uses an open-source business model, similar to projects like Ardour.

In the open-source world, the program's source code is publicly available. Anyone can view it, study it, modify it, improve it, or even compile it themselves if they have the technical knowledge. The software isn't locked away behind a paywall.

What the developer is actually charging for is the convenience and service he provides. Instead of requiring users to download the source code and build the program themselves, he compiles it into a ready-to-use binary and distributes that to paying customers.

Think of it like a recipe. The recipe is freely available to everyone, but not everyone has the time, tools, or expertise to cook the meal themselves. The developer's business is essentially saying, "The recipe is free, but if you'd like a finished meal that's ready to eat, I'll prepare it for you."

So when you pay him, you're not paying for access to the source code. You're paying him to do the work of building, packaging, testing, and delivering a ready-to-run version of the software. Many users are happy to pay for that convenience because it's easier than setting up a development environment and compiling the software themselves.

This model is quite common in Linux and open-source communities. The software remains free and open, while the developer earns income through binaries, support, subscriptions, consulting, maintenance, or other services built around the project.

In short: the software is open source and available to everyone. The product he sells is convenience, packaging, and support—not exclusive access to the code.

[audiojunkie]

Intersting figures from the Reaper Developers regarding deployment of Reaper DAW, based on the user base data.

"currently about 80% Windows, 16% macOS, 3% linux, 1% TRSDOS"

Interesting numbers. Do you happen to have a link to where those are posted?