Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] KEYBOARDS: Linux is not suited for audio applications ...
From: Paul Davis (paul_AT_linuxaudiosystems.com)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 15:27:33 EEST
>This is a very complex matter. Linus Thorvald himself considers
>linux not to be suited for audio or universally multimedia
>applications. Low-latency cannot be achieved with current
>kernels especially not multi-channel.
> On top of that comes the fact, that a setup of linux is quite
>simple today, but only if you don't leave the standard SuSE.
>But this must be done to work with audio and midi. Therefore
>hardly any sequencer manufacturer uses linux -- they fear the
>tremendous support effort. (try to explain a user on the phone,
>that he has to change a makefile and how he must compile the
>sources ...)
> Therefore there is no package that can hardly reach the level
>of Cubase or Logic.
> The driver support also is a problem. I have a great variety
>of popular interfaces (audio and midi) but there is no linux
>driver for one of them.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I hope we are able to shape a convincing answer!
I think that his general tone is about 75% correct. The details,
however, need improving:
>This is a very complex matter. Linus Thorvald himself considers
>linux not to be suited for audio or universally multimedia
>applications.
AFAIK, Linus has never said this. What he has said is that he doesn't
want to incorporate patches into the kernel that improve Linux
capabilities in this area *unless* they meet his design
standards. However, what Linus thinks is not very important. Very few
end users of Linux use a Linus kernel, they use one that comes from a
distributor. Its therefore more important what *they* think, and they
are generally much more inclined to support and distribute work that
does make Linux ideal for audio and multimedia work.
> Low-latency cannot be achieved with current
>kernels especially not multi-channel.
the 2.4 kernels shipped by RedHat and by SuSE already include the low
latency patch, AFAIK. and these kernels have been shown to outperform
everything except OS X in one test case (the famous study that OS X
proponents are always quoting).
> On top of that comes the fact, that a setup of linux is quite
>simple today, but only if you don't leave the standard SuSE.
>But this must be done to work with audio and midi. Therefore
apt+synaptic+PlanetCCRMA makes this almost completely painless for RH
users. Amazingly painless. Embarrassingly painless.
Also, from what I gather, setting up a machine with Windows to do pro
audio stuff is also very difficult, hence the emergence of "music PC"
companies like Clarion (did I remember their name correctly?). OS X
appears a bit better here, but thats inevitable when its a
single-sourced hardware platform.
>hardly any sequencer manufacturer uses linux -- they fear the
>tremendous support effort. (try to explain a user on the phone,
>that he has to change a makefile and how he must compile the
>sources ...)
This is just plain silly. Nobody would expect to provide end user
support by telling them to recompile. End user support for binary
packaged software will be done just like it is for MacOS and Windows.
In addition, although I can't discuss names, several very significant
names in the audio industry are extremely friendly toward Linux and
see it as the best way forward for everyone, mostly because it would
free them from the whims of OS manufacturers.
> Therefore there is no package that can hardly reach the level
>of Cubase or Logic.
Which version of Cubase or Logic? Logic 6.0 only just got edit and mix
groups, Ardour has had them for years (admittedly, they are not as
useful as they could be). And what about post-fader FX?
Anyway, sure, there are no packages matching SX or 6.0 at this time,
but there are several that are at least as good as early releases of
these programs, and they improve much faster than the commercial
ones. They also have the benefit of having been designed today, rather
than 5 years ago, and so they start off with the design assumptions of
today's user (Nuendo/SX is an exception to this).
And as a footnote, its not much use having a cool system like SX or
Logic if your basic operating system is unstable or can't do other
things you want to do with it. If I pay US$3K for a super-stable,
super-fast audio optimized machine, I want to be able to do shoutcast
streaming with it as well, run my studio etc. etc. Windows (by all
accounts) is poor at this kind of stuff, though OS X appears much
better.
> The driver support also is a problem. I have a great variety
>of popular interfaces (audio and midi) but there is no linux
>driver for one of them.
The ALSA soundcard matrix shows this to be a half-truth. There are a
huge number of supported audio interfaces, from cheap consumer
chipsets to high end pro audio devices. And almost any device for
which the manufacturer is willing to give us the specs will get a
driver written *for free* within a few weeks. But if the manufacturer
has the silly idea that a device driver discloses proprietary
information in a way that would otherwise be kept secret ... well,
there's nothing we can do about that. Linux is an open source
operating system, and ALSA is an open source driver architecture, and
if companies don't want their hardware supported by such a system,
that's their decision, not ours. Meanwhile, the many USB devices,
AC97-ish chipsets, M-Audio/ice17XX and RME devices (among others) that
ARE supported will continue to provide lots of choices for users at
many levels.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 15:25:18 EEST