Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] Re: image problem [was Re: [Alsa-devel] help for a levelmeter]
From: Mark Knecht (markknecht_AT_attbi.com)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 00:39:20 EEST
David,
Great thoughts. Thanks!
Mark
>
> There is a really GREAT reason for people to start migrating somewhere
though - 96KHz support.
>
The point: 44.1 and 48 kHz are going to remain standard for awhile, and the
presence or lack of 96 kHz at this point doesn't seem to make or break a
platform for most people that I know.
[MWK] - I agree with you technically, but if I understand the point of this
thread then marketing is the real issue. Everyone out there is thinking
they're going to go to 96K. Any solution that comes out from now on will
have some sort of support for it, and people think they need it to keep up.
Linux can, and does, offer it. The cost is no worse here than anywhere else,
and for a number of reason probably better.
> That problem is the lack of MIDI integrated to work with audio. Today we
have some great MIDI apps coming along (Muse, Rosegarden, Midi Mountain)
Ardour on the audio side, soft synths galore (although they are not all
usable in an integrated way yet) loads of interesting plugins and jack to
allow the audio to talk between apps.
Fair enough criticism, I suppose. The list reflected my own personal needs
and priorities, and I don't often use or care about MIDI. (I like
old-school text-driven synthesis languages and graphical synthesis
environments like PD and jMax.)
[MWK] - Yep, we all look at this from our own perspective, me included.
Linux give you tools to do that, but in my mind the discussion is about what
most people want, and today most people are in the graphics based,
Windows/Mac world. We need reasons to bring them over. I don't want to see
things get in the way.
> Here comes my little rant. The 'problem' here is that Linux apps are
developed by very intelligent, well meaning, technical people who work on
what they want to work on and not necessarily what's wanted and needed by
the 'marketplace'.
True enough. One sees this in Linux across the board. I do, however, think
that this is changing. Geeks and
non-geeks can blissfully coincide. One does not need to give up emacs to
use OpenOffice.
[MWK] - Yep, I agree completely
>I think that some real program management is required.
>Look at what the market wants and needs, (audio, MIDI, soft synths,
plugins,
>scoring, automation, etc.) write it down somewhere and then do an honest
>assessment of where Linux audio solutions are.
>
I don't think lack of awareness is the problem.
[MWK] Agreed
The problem is that most Linux audio apps are developed by people who have
full-time jobs doing other things. The problems involved in designing audio
apps are so great that even those people who are able to work full time on
Linux audio are often stumped as to how to implement the desired solutions.
Everyone knows we need a decent midi sequencer, and I for one would love to
have a truly usable notation program. Great. Just about everyone who knows
how to develop such an app is working for one of the big companies, and you
can bet they ain't going to open-source their code anytime soon. Guys like
Paul Davis and Bill Schottstaedt do not have the benefit of a team of
full-time codes who can help them solve the sorts of problems they face.
[MWK] David, I more than agree, but when a new person looking for tools
comes here because he read an article in Sound on Sound, he isn't going to
accept that Linux developers have other things to do. He's going to make a
decision based on his needs in a certain time frame. If what he's looking
for is here, he becomes a user. If not, he goes away. The only real point
I'm making is let's not over commit, and my thought on how to do that was in
the original post.
>If we have what the users
>need, then we talk. If we don't, then we put a program in place to make
that
>stuff happen fast,
>
Suggestions as to how to make this happen?
[MWK] First it takes a common vision about what we want. Do we want a single
program like PTLE or Cubase SX, or do we want something more distributed? Is
it possible to have both? I have my vision. Others undoubtedly have theirs.
I'd be happy to try and set up some way for us to monitor, measure, track,
manage something like this. Beyond that, it takes developers and
users/testers getting committed to making it happen. Personally I think at
least 80-90% of what we need is probably here somewhere. If I was running
this as a business, my input would be that we need to choose a direction,
find the pieces, figure out how to integrate them, find people who have some
time to do it, and get started.
>so that when we do have it we can talk. Unfortunately,
>this would require the developers to respond more like work and less like a
>hobby. I don't know that they want to do that. <EOR>
>
> Beyond that, we need to handle the installation stuff much more cleanly.
>PlanetCCRMA is doing a great job of that for the Redhat platform.
>
Yes they are. Nando rocks.
>I know
>that many people wouldn't want to be forced into a distribution long term,
>but in the beginning many people who will come and try out this stuff won't
>be Linux users and should be directed towards a COMPLETE solution.
Currently
>I think the Planet is the best I know of.
>
AGNULA is also a possibility.
>
> As I don't want you to think I'm negative on what's going on here, I
>think there are MANY things that Linux could offer, but isn't even trying
to
>talk about yet. Things like:
>
>1) Real multi-processor support
>2) Distributed processing where different apps are on multiple machines all
>working together
>3) Remote access - all the application computers are in a different room
and
>one very quiet PC is used in the studio to display their screens. No noise,
>but water cooling not required.
>4) Much more stable platform. No reboots, no sad Macs, no BSODs.
>5) More open hardware support, presuming someone ever makes the multicard
>thing understandable by those of us that don't have a PhD. in Alsa.
>
Unfortunately Linux is no longer the only platform to offer all that.
Mac OSX has all of the above, as well.
>At this point, I highly doubt that anyone is going to chuck their ProTools
>(TM) system in favor
>of Linux anytime soon.
>
>[MWK] I'm trying!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Great! But are we talking ProTools LE or a big ol' nasty TDM system? I
could see someone ditching LE, but TDM users (and the highest echelon of the
market is exclusively
TDM, even if the software is not ProTools) have too much invested in the
hardware.
[MWK] There are reasons they will NEVER ditch those systems, but it has
nothing to do with the sound. It's business. They see the Pro Tools (tm)
name as a business advantage. They will, however, put a Linux box in place
and use it if it works.
>
>
>The thing that could do it is to have some killer apps - 90% of the
>functionality of say, Logic would be good enough - with free
redistribution.
>
>[MWK] Yep! The caveat is that you have to have the right 90%!
>
As I said before, the problem isn't that the developers are ignorant as to
what the users want, it's that they
don't really know how to implement it.
[MWK] I sincerely hope that I'm not saying anything that would make you or
anyone else think I believe the developers are ignorant. Far from it. They
are amazing. However, if we have a vision of what we want to do, as we've
been speaking of above, will they develop it?
>
>[MWK] Great examples, but I'm not sure this morning what 'SC' is. However,
>not a MIDI app in the bunch yet, as per my comments above.
>
SC = SuperCollider. Formerly a proprietary MacOS app, recently GPL'd and
ported to OSX, andthere's a project underway to port the OSX version to
Linux.
[MWK] Yes, Super Collider! It looks cool!
-dgm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Oct 21 2002 - 00:47:37 EEST