[LAU] Is there a LAU music directory?

[David W. Jones]

On June 1, 2018 9:45:24 PM HST, David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org> wrote:
> david <gnome at hawaii.rr.com> writes:
> 
> > On 06/01/2018 03:47 AM, Christopher Arndt wrote:
> >> Am 01.06.2018 um 10:35 schrieb david:
> >>> Hmm, for me, "made on Linux" makes me expect anything but the
> >>> usual commercial music. I don't think we have many musicians on
> the
> >>> list whose obsession is to make the same music that's already on
> >>> the Pop 40 lists. ;)
> >>
> >> I think that's a rather bold assumption.
> >
> > I was just basing that on the kind of music that seems to get posted
> > here. Seems to mostly be synthesized instrumentals. Maybe it's just
> a
> > shortage of Pop 40 type singing voices?
> 
> What does the 40 in Pop 40 mean?

Pure popularity. The 40 most popular songs in USA at a particular point in time.

> >> To me, the reason for wanting to use Linux as the base of the music
> >> production process, are completely non-music related.
> >
> > I use Linux and Linux applications for all of my creative processes
> - 
> > photography, art, music, fiction, poetry. I like the flexibility and
> > the freedom from budget constraints. I don't support software
> > monopolies like Microsoft and Adobe, and hate the Apple's "walled
> > garden" and "patent lawyers on speed dial" approach. I tolerate the
> > walled garden on my Android tablet because I like some of the free
> > software on it (Caustic, Ensemble Composer, ArtFlow, Simplemind
> Free)
> > and there's no Linux tablet OS.
> >
> > How about you?
> 
> Mental laziness.  Same reason I am a vegetarian.  Saves me from a
> loads
> of worries and uncomfortable decisions and anguish and bad taste in
> mouth that I am better without.  Of course it has helped that market
> leader Microsoft has produced utter crap first with their operating
> systems and then with their licenses.

Hmm, I think horrible licenses predate Microsoft. Anyone remember mainframe software licenses from IBM, Data General and their ilk?

> Intel has managed to survive in that quagmire by creating the i386
> 32bit
> architecture and from that fortress in the Microsoft swamp progressing
> to kill the 68000 architecture, Alpha, SPARC because porting Windows
> would be akin to transplanting Keith Richard's liver: you cannot
> imagine
> it surviving outside of its niche because it's magic already that it
> survived inside of its niche.

68000 died because Motorola didn't keep up with Intel's performance. And Apple's choice to run everything through their 68000 chip meant that an 8Mhz Amiga (with graphic and sound coprocessors) could run rings around a 25Mhz Mac. (Used to use both those systems.)

 Intel's performance also eclipsed Alpha, eventually.

Don't know SPARC. I think they lost out because Intel chips were either as fast or faster, and SPARC chips were expensive. Never met a SPARC workstation that ran Windows, or was being used by someone who even wanted to run Windows. ;)

PowerPC is still around, right?

Can today's GPUs run Linux? That might threaten Intel at the performance end. Even my cheap little tablet has 64 GPU cores.

My experience with 2 ARM-powered tablets is they're no performance threat.

--
David W. Jones
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com

Sent from my Android device with F/LOSS K-9 Mail.