Subject: Re: Linux/Protools (was: Re: Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer
From: Mark Knecht (markknecht_AT_gmail.com)
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 20:23:59 EET
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:44:07 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio_AT_comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 08:47 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:16:16 +0100 (CET), Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen
> > <k.s.matheussen_AT_notam02.no> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Knecht:
> > > >
> > > > BTW - I truly think that in the next 12-24 months Digi will release
> > > > PTLE for Linux
>
> > > What digidesign should do, is to make their own specialized distribution
> > > of linux to run protools
>
> > I agree about rolling their own distro. That makes tons of sense for
> > the Pro Market
>
> I'm so sorry to be the one to inject the reality (read: doom and gloom)
> here... there's absolutely no way in hell Avid will ever hire/train or
> otherwise enlist linux developers to create a whole freaking new
> distro.... ever.
They don't have to. Some gungho Linux guy is going to show up at their
door one of these days and do it for them. (For free!) ;-)
>
> They're not in the OS business, and never will be... I was suggesting
> the very remote and distant possiblity of a linux-embedded automated
> console... not a distro.
>
> I'll bet the house on this one -> DigiDesign will not become a linux
> distributor/vendor.
<Big smile> The Mac guys said the same thing about them ever doing Windows...
It really doesn't have to be a 'distro' in the normal sense. It needs
to be a system that boots an appropriate kernel and runs one program.
Certainly a bit of support for disk management, networking, etc.,
would be required, but this is not a box that ever does email or plays
games. It's a console in a studio.
The guy I'm thinking of is the pro engineer sitting in front of a
screen listening to a band. This computer has very limited
requirements. Run Pro Tools. Talk to hard drives and Digi hardware.
Nothing more.
Anyway, this is just a wild thought, but I think it will happen in
12-24 months. If it doesn't I'm buying you a beer. (Heck - aren't we
neighbors anyway?)
>
> We really should all be throwing our shoulders behind ardour, working to
> make a DAW better than PT anyway.
Ardour has my full support. I'm using it right now - not my Pro Tools
stuff. It's not easy to use, but it gets better and better, and it's
fun to talk to the developers once in awhile and get some feedback. I
never get that from Digi.
However, this conversation really isn't about Ardour vs. Pro Tools..
(For me) It's about hardware support. Under Alsa there isn't any that
approaches what the 002 does, and there apparently isn't any coming on
the foreseeable horizon. That's what's causing Marek such heartburn.
Making Ardour better and better is a great goal, but if it's limited
to old hardware then it's considerably less interesting, at least to
me.
> Mark, maybe we should raise the issue
> of PTLE interoperability on the ardour-dev list again? Paul was open to
> it when last it came up... it was just disecting that session
> format/file standing in the way IIRC.
>
I'm happy to make test session files for anyone to look at, but
there's a lot more to a Pro Tools session than a file that points at
wave files. (As there is to an Ardour session file I'm sure.) There
are lots of specific items having to do with the Digi hardware. Unless
we have some plan to migrate a DigiDesign/fixed-architecture session
file to an Ardour/unknown architecture session file, then I don't
exactly know what good it would do. I have trouble trading sessions
with a drummer that used to have an 001 when I was using an 002.
Reading my 002 files into an Ardour session for any sound card sounds
like it's doomed from the start.
- Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Dec 01 2004 - 21:27:13 EET