Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracker
From: Dave Phillips (dlphilp_AT_bright.net)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 19:27:28 EET
Stonekeeper wrote:
>I go to sleep, wake up and see WW3 started! :)
>
>
It's just a skirmish, not even a battle. ;)
I'd like to note a few things regarding SkaleTracker, CheeseTracker, et
cetera.
First, I've used SkaleTracker. I profiled it for the MOD Tracker chapter
in the next edition of my book. It's an interesting program and it's
definitely worth trying out, with these caveats :
1. The author is very clear that the current release for Linux is
incomplete. Many features do not work yet. VST support is not there, for
example.
2. The author likes to hear from people using his software, just
like open-source developers. The SkaleTracker Web site hosts a very nice
forum where users can swap info and get the straight dope. Just like
here on the LAD list...
3. For all its GUI bells & whistles it's still behind the current
versions of SoundTracker and CheeseTracker. This is to be expected, see
note 1.
4. The GUI (designed by H.R. Geiger?) is indeed attractive and could
stand as an object lesson for LAD folks on what Windows/Mac users expect
to see in an audio application interface. Like it or not, it at least
shows a primary concern for GUI issues. LAD folk tend to be
performance-centric, with interface considerations a rather distant
second concern. There are of course notable exceptions.
It would be nice to see the author of SkaleTracker here on LAD, but not
all Linux audio developers feel the need to be here. Some feel that the
list is too dominated by particular personalities and/or philosophies
for them to be comfortable here. Frankly I believe those fears are
unbased, and a developer worth his salt should be able to stand some
heat anyway. LAD is not a snake pit, but its denizens are proud and
sometimes overly defensive, and you've seen that some of them do bite
back when bitten. ;)
I also believe that it's important for Linux audio people to get outside
this system and take a cool look at what's going on in the vastly larger
world of Win/Mac music software. There's much to be gained by
considering what the "competition" is up to.
Second, I've used CheeseTracker, it's also profiled in the new edition
of my book. Frankly, IMO it's a great program, just as sweet as
SkaleTracker, but as Juan points out it lacks the fancy GUI.
Nevertheless, in terms of operating functions it's currently 'way ahead
of SkaleTracker.
Also, it's worth pointing out that some fine Linux audio projects that
are currently closed-source do in fact have plans to eventually
open-source their work. It may seem strange to some developers here, but
some coders do not want input from others until such a time that they
feel their code is presentable. I say there's nothing wrong with that
attitude: not everyone has the personality for managing a project with a
lot of input, we can't all be like Paul Davis or Linus Torvalds. Some
authors simply like working on their own too, again until such a time as
they feel more confident about exposing their work publicly. Others are
less shy about exposing themselves... ;)
>... What I found somewhat offencive was the
>dismissive attitude to a port that the author really didn't have to
>make. If I was him and reading this list I would think twice about
>dedicating my time to people whose only focus is "yeah, but is it
>opensource?".
>
Whether you acknowledge it or not, open-source software is politically a
very hot topic. Especially here in the States, where M$ is doing
everything in its power to eradicate Linux and other open-source
endeavors. Those of us who keep track of what that company *does* (as
opposed to what it's flacks *say*) know perfectly well that Linux is a
very real and powerful threat to their hegemony. You might prefer to not
engage in this kind of dialog: fine, that's your choice, but it doesn't
change the fact that this issue is of profound importance, even to those
who "want no part of politics". You can get away with that attitude in
Windows, because you effectively give all your power to the company. Of
course you won't care about that while you're composing in Cubase. But
like the owners of StudioVision, maybe you'll start thinking about it if
Steinberg goes out of business or decides to discontinue support for
your software (which isn't really yours anyway: read your licenses for
clarification).
The statement that people here who might use SkaleTracker are focused
only on "Is it open-source ?" is either badly informed or poorly worded.
I've met many of the members of this list, and almost all of them are
musicians. Joern Nettingsmeier, Matthias Nagorni, Frank Barknecht, Jan
Depner, and many others are players as well as coders. Open-source is
indeed *one* item of great importance for them but it is not the only
such item.
>So with this in mind I must ask a question:
>
>Do you think a port of Sonar or Nuendo to linux would be a good thing?
>
>If so, and it happened, i promise you it would not be open source. These
>people need to make a living.
>
Sorry, but "Yawn, heavy sigh". This issue has been yakked about many
times over the years here. We're well along the way towards a
technically superior platform for audio and MIDI work, but I see no
signs that Sonar or Nuendo are on the way towards Linux. Nor should they
bother at this point. They'll *really* start to concern themselves with
us when Ardour starts popping up in a major studio or two and when Mix
magazine runs a story about a name producer who used Ardour and Linux to
create his latest sensation. Until then this domain is largely populated
by developers and the rare musicians/users who have the confidence and
time to work the system towards a more perfect condition.
You should take note that *no* commercial audio software for Linux has
succeeded, and there have actually been a few nice apps for sale (Jazz
and the Ultramaster RS101 come to mind). Perhaps your question really
ought to be "If Sonar or Cubase were available for Linux would anyone
buy it if Ardour + MusE did exactly the same things at a fraction of the
cost ?".
>This port would mean that in the publics eyes, linux was now considered
>a viable alternative by the "industry" and linux audio has reached the
>big time.
>
Interesting. You seem to be saying that the public equates closed-source
with big-time.
There was a day in my youth when musicians were perceived as radical
people. Alas, they seem mostly now to be happy toeing corporate lines.
Perhaps Linux is a motivating influence for those musicians who still
perceive themselves as truly radical, denying that public equation in
favor of something better ? Just a thought...
> You would have binary compatibility problems, like you said.
>You would also have nothing to show if the company went down, like you
>say. But for the windows musician, that's par for the course.
>
So you accept a poor situation and make a virtue of it ? I left the
Win/Mac world precisely because I found that kind of rollover to be
uncomfortable and ultimately unnecessary.
> If the
>motivation for a coder/company is NOT to make money, the opensource
>development model (IMHO) is the best way to go. All the benefits stated
>by various posters are available and I fully believe in this model,
>under that situation. I am a coder myself and a musician and i would
>personally opensource anything that I didn't need to make a living off.
>
>
Are you implying that it's not likely that anything open-source could be
saleable ? I believe that's merely historical accident, i.e., we haven't
had anything to compete with closed-source commercial offerings so there
have been few open-source commercial offerings and those have not been
competitive-capable. All that is changing now, which is perhaps why this
discussion is worth having now.
Btw, are you making a living as a musician or a coder or both ?
>If you think a binary port of Sonar or Nuendo would be a bad thing, then
>that's more of an opinion based on philosophy and not based on
>furthering linux in the audio realm.
>
>
Personally I'd be happy to see those ports, but I wouldn't go out of my
way to support them unless the manufacturers bring something more to the
party. Otherwise they'll be just some more hangers on for the ride,
benefiting from the work done by many of the people who populate this
list. To each his own though, and I can easily understand why a user
would want those apps on this platform.
OTOH, if Steiberg et al. give something back then I'm better inclined to
support their products. Linux is definitely one of the most successful
"take & give" projects ever conceived, and if the guys at Sonar want my
dollars then they'll have to get involved in the open-source world too.
I don't say they have to make their product open-source, they could do
as 4Front Technologies does by supporting an open-source project (4Front
supports XMMS development). So there are ways for them to sell their
product _and_ make a real contribution back to the community that's made
it possible for them to have a superior platform to run on.
>It's good top talk. :)
>
>
Yes, it is.
<OldManMutteringMode>
I'm reminded of the time I worked in a management collective for a food
co-operative. One of the most important sections of our charter involved
raising the political awareness of the membership because the politics
of food are important (it's why the co-ops appeared in the first place).
However, most members found that aspect to be tedious and uninteresting.
They simply wanted lower prices for better quality food, they did not
want to exert themselves in any political direction, and they were happy
to deny that political implications even existed (or they were simply
happy to let others concern themselves with the issues). This would have
been fine, except the point of a co-op is co-operation, and the business
could not succeed if its members were uninvolved in the political
domain. I learned that some co-ops had excellent political involvement:
they were most often co-ops in locations where people really needed them
and were politically motivated out of necessity. Some of us here are
like those people, we feel the necessity even if others do not.
</OldManMutteringMode>
Okay, that's my two drachmas. Most of the folks here have heard all this
from me before, sorry about your luck. ;)
Best regards,
Dave Phillips
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Nov 27 2003 - 19:18:25 EET