Re: [linux-audio-user] Free Software vs. Open Source: Where do *you* stand?

Well, one thing that makes the choice easier for me is just knowing that
in my own case, I don't really need the computer to do much. In fact,
most things that the computer can provide to the sequencing and
recording process are just added bonuses to me that I could do without.
That makes it very easy for me to choose Linux, since I like it already.

When I first got into Midi and recording in the 80's, sequencing was
something you often did on a keyboard's own internal sequencer, or a
standalone machine. (Imagine that...there were actual machines called
sequencers!) I still use and love the sequencer on the Ensoniq ESQ-1.
Most computer sequencers have a user interface problem compared to its
intuitiveness and simplicity. All of the sequencers from that era ran
from 8-bit processors, and saved files that were only a few kilobytes.
I didn't think I was lacking anything, because the equipment was very
fun to work with, and all of the commercial albums of that time were
being made with the exact same equipment. Things that were on the radio
were sequenced with 8-bit processors, and recorded on tape.

I have a lot of gear from that era today: Oberheim OB-8, Roland
Jupiter-8, Korg PolySix, Ensoniq ESQ-1, Multimoog... Plus I also have
some more recent stuff like an Akai MPC2000 and a Yamaha SY99, both of
which each have yet more sequencers that are not computer-based.

For a long time when Ardour was still in a more beta stage of
development, the web site used to say something like (paraphrasing) that
Ardour was at that time "at least as good as strapping together a lot of
Alesis ADAT's." Well, even if that were still the case now, that would
be good enough for me. I don't really need computer sequencing (though
it's nice), or computer effects processing (though it's nice). If I had
to, I could go back to tape instead of computer recording, but again,
computer recording is nice.

Sometimes, I almost think I even want to go back. It was kind of nice
when the only problems I had to worry about were: don't clip, don't let
signals get too weak, and don't let Midi cable length problems cause
machines to skip clocks and get out of sync with the master sequencer.
Compared to that, all this kernel patching business is more about being
a sysadmin than playing drums or keyboards anyhow.

Anyway, aside from that digression, the point is, I don't necessarily
need the computer in my production process at all. Whatever open source
tools like Ardour, Rosegarden, ECAsound, Glame, JSynthLib, etc. give me
are all nice, but then, so is the sequencer on the ESQ-1. In fact, at
one point, they even made albums with no Midi at all. It wasn't really
so horrible either -- people had a lot of fun doing that.

That said, none of this will help Linux succeed in the market against
ProTools and Cubase though. If anything, it just makes me a fairly
undemanding user I guess. If I had to ask Linux for anything more, it'd
probably be more pro cards supported by Alsa (something which is in the
hardware vendors' hands). I love the Delta 1010, but it makes me
nervous knowing that this one particular card, plus the RME Hammerfall
(assuming you can afford it and all its necessary A/D gear), pretty much
consist of the full lineup of supported fully pro recording cards.
That's just *not* good...

-- 
+ Brent A. Busby,   UNIX Systems Admin	 +   "It's like being	+
+ James Franck / Enrico Fermi Institute	 +    blindsided by a	+
+     The University of Chicago		 +    flying dwarf..."	+