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

[Hannu Savolainen]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Mike Taht wrote:

> Three years ago, or so, I tried to make a record using purely open
> source and free software. It wasn't ready. That didn't matter so much, it
> turned out the proprietary software I was trying to use wasn't ready 
> either, despite marketing promises of wonderfulness, the products were 
> too buggy to use for my purposes. (I was trying for a 96khz concept 
> record with surround).  Today, after steady visible progress I could do 
> it with ardour, linuxsampler, and rosegarden - (but don't have the time 
> or the money for soundproofing)
You seem not have noticed that today also the proprietary software can do 
the same. And the result is not so much caused by advances in the software 
but in hardware. Today's machines just are 3-5 times more powerfull than 
the ones three years ago. Thinking that the open source model did the 
miracle is just an observation error.

When I started with Linux sound 15 years ago (486/50DX2 at that time) it 
was barely possible to play a 3 channel .MOD file at 44 kHz in real time. 
I had to convert the player (str) to use fixed point instead of floating 
point and to do all kind of other modifications. To play a MP3 file was 
just a dream until Pentium machines). Now 15 years later the 
same program plays a 2 minute module in fractions of a second. The same is 
almost true with MP3 files. All this just because the hardware is 1000 now
times faster. The software is unmodified so it doesn't cause any 
improvement (other than the effect of better optimizations in recent gcc 
versions).

> The proprietary ethos leads to products that require license keys, tech 
> support, marketing staff, requirements documents, language lawyers, 
This has nothing to do with "proprietary ethos". This kind of stuff 
depends just on company culture. It is possible to produce proprietary 
software without any lawyers or marketing staff. Tech support is not a big 
issue if the software is adequately good. Unfortunately license keys are 
required because otherwise you cannot get anybody to pay for the software.

> and inevitable legions of bugs unfixed because of all that deadweight a 
> commercial programmer must support. 
The claim that proprietary software has more bugs than open source one is 
an urban legend. There is proprietary software that is full of bugs. 
Equally well there is open source software that doesn't even compile. Some 
software is just written by incompetent programmers. This has nothing to 
do with the distribution policy. If there are any bugs then users report 
them to the author of the program who fixes it (also with proprietary 
software).

Best regards,

Hannu
-----
Hannu Savolainen (hannu at opensound.com)
http://www.opensound.com (Open Sound System (OSS))
http://www.compusonic.fi (Finnish OSS pages)
OH2GLH QTH: Karkkila, Finland LOC: KP20CM