Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Linux and Standards
From: tim hall (tech_AT_glastonburymusic.org.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 01 2004 - 13:16:50 EET
Ico,
In general I think this is a good analysis of the situation. It brought up
some thoughts for me, which may not affect your immediate presentation.
Last Saturday 30 October 2004 08:23, Ivica Ico Bukvic was like:
> LINUX AS A STANDARD
> I feel that considering linux as a standard is on one hand a kind of a
> paradox as it is built on the premise that individual truly can tweak it to
> heart's content and therefore it is relatively unlikely that any two Linux
> boxes would look and/or perform the same.
Semantic point: I don't think we should really be talking of Linux as a
'Standard'. Wouldn't it be more correct to talk about a subset of GNU
standards used by multimedia applications based on Linux? OK, I know that's a
bit of a mouthful. Linux is not an OS. I think we need to ground a
standardised term here.
> Yet, on the flip-side of the coin
> Linux stands as a most successful offspring of the GNU movement and as such
> it is the most revolutionary and therefore the standard-setting OS in a
> category where it has no competition. Furthermore, this diversity it offers
> perhaps stands in its own light as a kind of a standard offering the
> end-user to shape their computer as a personalized instrument.
>
> PLANET CCRMA/DeMuDi/THAC'S RPMS/AUDIOSLACK
> The diversity seemingly suggests lack of standards, yet the software
> packages in most cases seamlessly compile on various distributions. This
> diversity is simply a byproduct of the diversity of the commercial Linux
> distributions. This is where lies perhaps the biggest problem with Linux,
> and that is the issue of different file tree across the different
> distributions which introduces hurdles for the "compile-from-the-source"
> crowd and in part feeds the demand for the prebuilt distros and subsequent
> fragmentation (a vicious circle if you like).
The more I try to explain Free Operating systems to people used only to Mac &
Windows, I come up against the problem of this 'Linux' word. It's the only
identifier that most people are familiar with. From here 'Linux' appears to
have several incompatible sub-distributions. The prebuilt distros should all
sit on the same level, e.g.:
Mac Windows Debian Mandrake Fedora SuSE Gentoo Slackware ...
sorry if I missed your favourite flavour. Then we find that we have a whole
bunch of alternative OSs to Windows & Mac with a wide degree of compatibility
due to being based on the same or similar kernels. It's a kind of 'Glass half
Full' approach.
So rather than offering to replace 'Windows' with 'Linux', I'm currently
offering my friends, clients and anything that boots to replace Windows with
'Debian' (even though they'll actually be getting AGNULA/DeMuDi-1.2, I'll
break that to them later ;). Then I ground the term 'Debian' for them as
being a Linux based Distribution and explain that it's Free.
I don't find the diversity a problem, it just depends which way you want to
look at it. The situation is further confused by the plethora of apparent
desktop environments available, KDE and GNOME have significant differences in
their use of the file tree and the same is often true on an application
level, here, however we probably _can_ talk about specific 'Linux Audio'
standards.
It's a joy when applications work together relatively seamlessly. Standards
such as NETWM and those that have grown out of Linux Audio Development make
life much less confusing and more productive. The more we support and talk
about these 'Strong' core ideas, the better. :)
> KERNELS
> There is no "standard" audio kernel even though some of the kernel releases
> in conjunction with patches yield better performance. This diversity is
> however irrelevant as most of the applications work just fine on different
> sub-versions of the same kernel without a recompile. Therefore such
> disparity is more of a nuisance for the end-user than a potential
> standard-breaking anomaly. Furthermore the fix for such disparity is
> provided via aforementioned distributions.
Mmm, Standard Audio Kernel. Now that would be a thing.
> APPLICATIONS
> The powerful thing about Linux is that while everyone is welcome to
> contribute their own ideas or even design their own applications from
> ground-up, the strongest concepts rather than most developed applications
> are the ones who set the standard (i.e. JACK, ALSA, etc.) which is not
> always the case with the commercial proprietary World where often PR plays
> a critical role (i.e. VHS vs. BETAMAX -- although this is not the best
> example as this is not software-related but you get my point). Eventually,
> the strongest concepts do become also the most developed ones, but due to
> the fact that the source is readily available and that other developers
> choose to implement and therefore support those interfaces which look most
> promising, should there ever a new standard arise it will always have the
> chance to rise and overcome the leading standard, no matter how well the
> leading standard is established, and will likely do so in a least painful
> fashion for the end-user (i.e. ALSA vs. OSS as opposed to OS9 vs. OSX
> transition). Finally, open-source nature of the software minimizes the
> potential for misrepresentation of the format's features (a.k.a. false
> advertising in the commercial world). This is where Linux truly shines.
Yep.
> That being said, Linux has its own share of disparate formats which impede
> the development of a standard (i.e. every sequencing software has a
> different format for saving the sessions). However, it is my feeling that
> this is simply a transitional phase and in due time the strongest will
> prevail.
>
> As far as the standard or core applications of the Linux community are
> concerned, I really do not wish to go there as that may spawn heated
> discussion which may completely detract from my goals. Besides, it is
> exactly this individualized preference that drives the diversity in Linux's
> software offering.
>
> AUDIO-RELATED STANDARDS THAT CAME FROM LINUX COMMUNITY (in no particular
> order -- it's 3am, give me a break ;-)
> Jack, LADSPA, LASH, ALSA, Ogg/Vorbis, others?
> (Lash is especially interesting as it is designed to unite seemingly
> different standards under one umbrella session controlling mechanism which
> is something unique for the Linux platform -- other proprietary formats are
> imho harder to unite under such a meta-standard, if you like, because they
> are often conceived to work just by themselves and do not necessarily
> encourage efforts from various competitive companies to conform to them;
> they rather come up with their own standard unless the existing standard is
> too strong to compete with which in either case results in a less adequate
> solution for the end-user)
>
> What is both interesting and in part detrimental (at least in short-term)
> to the Linux audio community is that many formats due to their openness are
> not readily supported by the proprietary world as they have no
> profit-making value (i.e. Apple's DRM-ed AAC is safeguarded by Apple so
> that they can profit from licensing it to other companies and/or locking in
> their iTunes/iPod market).
This is another difficulty with introducing new users. The Free formats appear
from the outside user's perspective to be just as 'locked in' as their
proprietary counterparts, especially the way Debian distributes them ;]. Now,
you know and I know that this isn't the case. However, my website is visited
by 75% Windows XP users with MSIE6 - If my site doesn't work for them
(Because my site _is_ standards-compliant and _they_ *cough* are not) they're
not going to be terribly convinced about the wonder of Free Software. I
suspect the .oggs I have up there hardly get listened to, so I'm still locked
into mp3s and helix/realplayer, on an 'If at first you don't succeed, lower
your standards' basis :-\.
> One final remark on Linux standards as a whole is that Linux holds an upper
> hand when it comes to longevity of their standards as they are not
> encumbered by the IP limitations imposed by a particular company and
> therefore directly dependant on the company's longevity.
And they're Open.
cheers
tim hall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 13:54:05 EET