[LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
fons at linuxaudio.org
Fri Feb 8 01:02:13 UTC 2013
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:25:19PM -0800, Michael Bechard wrote:
> > Counter-counter question: why not try and run MS Office, Outlook,
> > etc. under Linux ? More choice for the user !
> Yep, that would be pretty cool. Difficult, but cool. Does that mean
> it's not worth putting effort into?
It's wasted effort. Just run those things under the system they were
designed for. Use a VM if you don't want to waste any hardware.
> > Any anyway, of those 'tons' maybe 1% provides 'quality', the rest
> > isn't any better than what we already have or could have natively.
> Reeeeaaallly debatable...
At the place where I work we also have a MAC which has 'a ton' of
Waves plugins available in either Logic or PT. Waves is a *very*
respected name, they don't produce crap, on the contrary all their
stuff works and works quite well.
But do you really think that when doing a mix, the quality of the
final result will depend on which of the 15 or so general purpose
equalisers you use on any particular track ? It doesn't - you could
as well believe in the wonders of unobtainium cables filled with left
twisting electrons and hand woven by Yorkshire virgins. The result
will depend only on your skill in using any one of those EQs. Same
for most other standard plugin functions. A few of them do something
really unique, that's the 1% I referred to.
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
More information about the Linux-audio-dev