Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracker
From: Stonekeeper (stonekeeper_AT_stonekeeper.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 01:29:41 EET
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 17:27, Dave Phillips wrote:
> It's just a skirmish, not even a battle. ;)
Ah well, it's the first post i got a reply to anyway ;)
> Sorry, but "Yawn, heavy sigh". This issue has been yakked about many
> times over the years here.
Sorry. Not been here that long :)
> 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).
Why do you think that was?
Being closed source? (Would you have bought it if you could download
it?)
Too pricey?
Linux cheapskates? ;) (Before WW4 starts, I exclusively use linux for
my work :) )
I'd be interested to know.
> 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 ?".
Well, that was what i was asking above.
> Interesting. You seem to be saying that the public equates closed-source
> with big-time.
No sorry. You misinterpreted what i meant. I mean if a big company would
spend effort porting an application to linux then others in the industry
would notice that and more likely consider it a "viable" platform.
> 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...
I really hope that comment was targeted at me, i really do. You couldn't
paint a better picture of irony :)
> So you accept a poor situation and make a virtue of it ?
Again, misinterpretation. I never said that did i? I said it was par for
the course for windows users.
> Are you implying that it's not likely that anything open-source could be
> saleable ?
OK, now you got me talking. My opinion is fairly clear on this:
It is very difficult to sell something to someone that you can also get
for no cost. Infact, it's almost impossible if the customer knows this.
If steinberg opensourced cubase, they would not be making money on sales
of cubase. People would package them up with better installers and we'd
all be using it. What I do believe you can sell is services. This is
where the "product" becomes the tool and you sell your time and
peripheral services.
> 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.
I'm glad i can help ;)
> Btw, are you making a living as a musician or a coder or both ?
I'm making a living as a coder. I will be making money from music when
the MCPS money comes through.
> 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.
I don't think they'd ask.
> 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.
That's the beauty of open source, it frees us to build on the shoulders
of others.
> To each his own though, and I can easily understand why a user
> would want those apps on this platform.
ok, shock time: I probably wouldn't bother with these either.
> OTOH, if Steiberg et al. give something back then I'm better inclined to
> support their products.
I don't understand what you mean by supporting them.
> 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.
I wholeheartedly agree.
> Okay, that's my two drachmas. Most of the folks here have heard all this
> from me before, sorry about your luck. ;)
Cheers Dave.
-Lea.
PS: I may just post about where i really stand on all this and maybe
I'll take off my devil suit ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 02:44:51 EET