Jim Roseberry Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 22 minutes ago, smallstonefan said: Quote of the year so far Jim! ? LOL! The year is young... let's see what else it brings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InstrEd Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 45 minutes ago, Jim Roseberry said: LOL! The year is young... let's see what else it brings. Yep with election year horse dung being slung around I'm sure Jim's comment will be easily surpassed ? I didn't pick sides as both all parties are guilty of heaving the manure around. Duck! Don't say I didn't warn you. Peace ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Roseberry Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 16 minutes ago, InstrEd said: Yep with election year horse dung being slung around I'm sure Jim's comment will be easily surpassed ? I didn't pick sides as both all parties are guilty of heaving the manure around. Duck! Don't say I didn't warn you. Peace ? Haha! "Politicians, the Dung-Beatles of humanity." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesse g Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 2 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said: Nothing lame about it. What problem/s does a Linux DAW solve? Latency? Compatibility? Performance? The short answer is none of the above. What is "Lame ***" is Linux as a DAW platform. 20+ years behind Mac and PC Far fewer developers Miniscule user base (Mac/PC DAW user base in tiny compared to general-purpose users. Linux DAW users are a tiny percentage compared to Mac/PC). Low demand (vs Mac/PC) 101 different OS variants Near zero one-on-one support for less tech-savvy users What does a miniscule user-base, few developers, and low demand result in? You guessed it, no significant profit. The reality of the situation is that (especially in today's economy), companies can't afford thousands of man-hours (development)... for something that's not going to pay for itself. If your life-savings was invested in a DAW software company, would you honestly think it a wise investment to develop a Linux DAW? Lets say you've got 10 thousand man-hours in development cost (at $50/man-hour). That's half a million dollars. I don't know about you, but I'd want that $500,000 to generate a decent return on investment. Mac/PC is going to have a much better ROI... because the user-base is much larger (far more potential customers). Say Company X compiled the ultimate Linux DAW. Legitimate support across the many different variants of Linux would be a nightmare (money and time). Why do you think many laptop developers choose to hide BIOS parameters from end-users? It's not because it's beneficial from a performance standpoint, it's to save them from potential tech-support nightmare. If you want to run a Linux DAW "just because you can"... more power to you. For someone who has everything they want/need in a current Mac/PC DAW, where's the impetus to make a (less than lateral) move? Emotional/philosophical reasons aren't going to motivate folks to take a significant step backward. Remember when Mac/PC DAWs were starting to come about? Oh, this new DAW software is going to be the "ProTools killer". Just because someone created an alternative (even if it's completely equal in features/function), that's not enough of a reason to get many folks to switch. Linux as legitimate DAW platform (to completely rival Mac/PC) faces a nearly vertical slope. Jim, How do you really feel about DAWs using the Linux platform? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettelus Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 3 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said: Far fewer developers I think that is really how I read into the OP as it was, but from the standpoint of Studio One. I.e., the development horsepower in house is sufficient to let the tech savvy folks "play around" with another variant. I doubt that it is really an intended market, but more the "we wanted to see if we could do it, so we did." The most destructive effect from the Gibson debacle was the gutting of the Cakewalk development team. Being out manned by an order of magnitude makes everything harder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy1 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Some of the best utilities come from open source developers. I've used Linux CDs and flash drives to recover files from a Windows system. It falls way short in the world of multimedia and supporting the hardware for those apps. I tried riding that Linux train 4 times and no more for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteven Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) On 10/6/2023 at 11:01 PM, mettelus said: On a serious note, there is no denying that there is a Linux fan base (regardless the size), so a larger developer stepping up to the plate to support them is impressive. The Linux user base is very loud & vocal but small and frugal. Back in 2001 Borland released Delphi 6 development platform - it supported both Linux (using the name Kylix) and Windows for the first time. Sales for the Linux version was so disappointing (and not because of the quality of the platform**) that when Delphi 7 was released - no Kylix. Borland wasn't the first company to mistake how ardently people request something doesn't always translate to sales. **the fish were hungry but the pond was shallow. Big difference nowadays is that many of the development languages are multiplatform so as long as you started the project on one of those platforms going PC > Mac (or vice versa) or to Linux isn't the total commitment it once was. Still, it will require a commitment of resources to develop, maintain & keep upgrading it. For legacy applications creating a cross platform version often means starting from scratch and then having to feed & maintain totally separate development streams. Edited January 6 by TheSteven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starship Krupa Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 22 hours ago, TheSteven said: The Linux user base is very loud & vocal The reason they are so vocal about begging developers to port their apps is of course that the platform lacks so many apps. A Linux loony who's trying to sell you on switching to the platform will go on and on about how Linux can do everything a Windows or Mac system can do, and how the FOSS apps that are available are the equal or better of anything available for those systems. Then they'll beg commercial developers endlessly to port their products to the platform. If the former were true, why would the latter be necessary? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user 905133 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) Did anyone else try Ubuntu Studio when it first came out? Quote What is the difference between Ubuntu and Ubuntu Studio? Ubuntu is an operating system with similar app like a windows operating system but Ubuntu Studio contains pre-installed apps that are used by photographers, video editors, music creators etc. Quote Ubuntu Studio is a recognized flavor of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, which is geared to general multimedia production. The original version, based on Ubuntu 7.04, was released on 10 May 2007. Word on the street: it was intended to make things easier for creative types so they didn't have to be Linux Geeks. In my admittedly limited personal experience with Linux, having music apps bundled with Ubuntu was a good start, but it wasn't anywhere sufficient for me to try to give up my existing music-making tools (which included SONAR). It still would have required too much to teach myself what I already knew how to do. I see that Ubuntu Studio 23.10 was released in October. I note with interest that it includes OBS Studio version 29.1.3. If in addition to Cakewalk Next and Cakewalk Sonar, there were a Cakewalk Performer that (1) could exchange files with Next and Sonar, (2) would allow for multitrack recording of live streamed performances, and (3) would be geared towards live, realtime performance modalities, I could see that being useful to a number of different music creating communities. Edited January 7 by User 905133 added a missing word 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmcleod Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Personally, I think Linux as an operating system rocks. However, as a DAW platform (certainly on desktop), it has these two major issues: 1. Lack of audio driver support for professional interfaces 2. Lack of native Linux VST plugins (2) can be worked around by using a wrapper, but this increases CPU usage. I don't know Presonus's motives behind this move, but it may be to allow some of Studio One's features in a hardware product at some point (total speculation here!!). Korg already uses the Raspberry Pi as the basis for a lot of their hardware synths, so likewise, Presonus may be looking to re-use Studio One's technology in a linux-based hardware product at some point - maybe as part of their StudioLive series? Having the fully-fledged DAW out there in the wild being effectively tested by users may help to iron out issues before they commit to shipping it in a hardware form. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy1 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Doesn't Linux already lead in appliances and hardware not requiring an OS? That's what the fanboys claim. The standalone Push is a Linux box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy1 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 On 1/5/2024 at 10:55 AM, Jim Roseberry said: Nothing lame about it. What problem/s does a Linux DAW solve? Latency? Compatibility? Performance? The short answer is none of the above. What is "Lame ***" is Linux as a DAW platform. 20+ years behind Mac and PC Far fewer developers Miniscule user base (Mac/PC DAW user base in tiny compared to general-purpose users. Linux DAW users are a tiny percentage compared to Mac/PC). Low demand (vs Mac/PC) 101 different OS variants Near zero one-on-one support for less tech-savvy users What does a miniscule user-base, few developers, and low demand result in? You guessed it, no significant profit. The reality of the situation is that (especially in today's economy), companies can't afford thousands of man-hours (development)... for something that's not going to pay for itself. If your life-savings was invested in a DAW software company, would you honestly think it a wise investment to develop a Linux DAW? Lets say you've got 10 thousand man-hours in development cost (at $50/man-hour). That's half a million dollars. I don't know about you, but I'd want that $500,000 to generate a decent return on investment. Mac/PC is going to have a much better ROI... because the user-base is much larger (far more potential customers). Say Company X compiled the ultimate Linux DAW. Legitimate support across the many different variants of Linux would be a nightmare (money and time). Why do you think many laptop developers choose to hide BIOS parameters from end-users? It's not because it's beneficial from a performance standpoint, it's to save them from potential tech-support nightmare. If you want to run a Linux DAW "just because you can"... more power to you. For someone who has everything they want/need in a current Mac/PC DAW, where's the impetus to make a (less than lateral) move? Emotional/philosophical reasons aren't going to motivate folks to take a significant step backward. Remember when Mac/PC DAWs were starting to come about? Oh, this new DAW software is going to be the "ProTools killer". Just because someone created an alternative (even if it's completely equal in features/function), that's not enough of a reason to get many folks to switch. Linux as legitimate DAW platform (to completely rival Mac/PC) faces a nearly vertical slope. Best post ever to silence the annoying Linux user. Some are more annoying than Apple users outside the DAW world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristian Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) Well, Bitwig Studio also has a Linux version. Tracktion Waveform not only has a Linux version but also an ARM version for Raspbian, for the Raspberry PI. Then again, Tracktion is essentially an afterthought in the world of DAWs and music arrangement, so that might not be surprising, nor important . As for who could be the intended market? A lot of programmers and computer nerd types have found amateur music making as a hobby in the past few years. I assume they might be part of the target market. @kitekrazy the Maschine standalone is also a Linux box running an intel Atom CPU. And the modern standalone AKAI MPCs are also Linux boxes. Edited January 7 by Cristian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Rintoul Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 5 hours ago, kitekrazy said: Best post ever to silence the annoying Linux user. Some are more annoying than Apple users outside the DAW world. You know what is even more annoying? People who keep complaining about annoying Linux/Mac/Windows users. Full disclosure, I was a long time Linux/Ubuntu user but moved to Windows to do music software. But there are a lot of things I miss in Windows. I also don't like OS X but I do understand there are people who prefer it and that is okay with me. So as far as I am concerned, each to their own. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmcleod Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 16 hours ago, kitekrazy said: Doesn't Linux already lead in appliances and hardware not requiring an OS? That's what the fanboys claim. The standalone Push is a Linux box. Linux is an OS. The advantages for hardware is that it's a powerful and very reliable OS that makes development much easier. The downside is the start-up time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now