Greg Wilder wrote:
>On Wednesday 21 December 2005 10:09, Dave Phillips wrote:
>
>
>>I. I. Ooisen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>right. "command line", the way we see it now, is a primitive way to put
>>>a computer to work.
>>>
>>>
>>No, it's a very powerful way of working with a computer. As Emiliano
>>noted, there are certain tasks that are best suited to a GUI and others
>>that are best served from the command prompt.
>>
>>
>
>I whole-heatedly agree with Dave, but for a slightly different reason.
>
>Having command line accessible applications available in GNU/Linux means that
>you have a greater number of options with regard to how you can interact with
>your production environment. For example, tedious and difficult tasks (i.e.
>batch format conversion, advanced synthesis techniques, sound library
>searches, etc.) can easily be automated with the results fed directly to your
>current project.
>
>It's simply a different way to work and like everything else - it has pros and
>cons. But for many, it's a truly empowering way to produce music.
>
>
>
>>I believe the primary reasons more musicians don't use Linux have to do
>>with at least these conditions:
>>
>> 1. The perpetuation of outmoded perceptions re: usability and interfaces.
>> 2. The lack of wide hardware manufacturer support.
>> 3. The reticence of the major music journals to cover the growing
>>Linux audio scene.
>> 4. The lack of serious attention given Linux audio from within the
>>larger Linux community itself.
>> 5. No-one has released a hit created with Linux audio tools.
>>
>>
>
>While I agree with points 1-4, I think there needs to be a bit of
>clarification added to point #5.
>
>Hundreds (probably more like thousands) of commercial releases involve
>GNU/Linux audio tools. I know this because I have contributed dozens myself
>(national television and radio spots, theatrical scores, commercial CD
>releases etc.). But how would anyone know which tools I've used?
>
>There also needs to be clarification regarding music produced for commercial
>purposes and music created for other reasons.
>
>Generally speaking, the majority of commercially available music software is
>designed for the quick and easy production of popular music. By definition
>this means that the software is created in such a way that important musical
>decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of the time, the user isn't
>even aware that this is happening - if the option is never presented to you
>how can you miss it?
>
>Having said that, there is a definite advantage to this approach. Commercially
>produced software is usually optimized for a few specific tasks, and it can
>manage those tasks with relative ease. As with most commercial enterprises,
>time is money and there is great value to having tools like this.
>
>What can we do to promote the use of Linux audio tools? We can take advantage
>of the unique and "unusual" ways of producing music that the GNU/Linux
>environment provides. Don't come to FOSS looking for a Cubase clone - Cubase
>already exists - and works reasonably well.
>
>Build a better musical product - and people will want to know, "How'd you do
>that?"
>
>
>
>>Perhaps you should look into the latest development in Csound5, Common
>>Music, and Pd ?
>>
>>
>
>Amen. ;-)
>
>Greg
>www.steeprockmedia.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually fear the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this will
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at least hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally become just
another commercial o.s.
For me gnu/Linux is the best operating system because it is free (as in
free speech). The fact that open source software most of the times is
better, in terms of power and versatility, than its commercial
counterpart is a direct consequence of the whole open source philosophy
and the people, the community behind it.
I think that we don't have to demonstrate anything to anybody. We should
just thank god that there are still some people who value freedom and
the right of knowledge. If we're into OSS just because we think it's
better, we've missed the point about why it is better.
Just my two cents.
c.
www.cesaremarilungo.com
Received on Thu Dec 22 00:15:08 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 22 2005 - 00:15:08 EET