27 Mar
2007
27 Mar
'07
2:20 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:17:16PM +0200, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
I know it's not really what you mean, but it seems to me that duplicating
the current methodologies and replacing every "professional" costly
application with an exact free software counterpart that happens to run
under linux is a bit pointless? What is the the motivation? Just to force
businesses out of business?
Surely a better approach is to make free software that does things costly
software simply can't do - or at least try out new approaches that are too
risky for a company to attempt.
I know I'm a minority, but the thing that makes linux for me is that it's
full of eccentric, strange and individual applications - yes sometimes
they don't work, it's frustrating to an alarming degree on occasion, but
it's so much more _interesting_ to make music with than than a handful of
polished products aimed at potential lifestyle marketplaces.
cheers,
dave
Maybe one day there will be a Linux version of
Live, but it's
not something I particularily look forward to, as I wouldn't
use it anyways unless it gets opensource'd.
There are probably many of us thinking the same way.
But the sad fact is that if all Linux users do this, then
Linux will forever be an 'amateur' platform. From the PoV
of a professional audio user (i.e. one who makes his/her
living by providing services in that area), if a product
does the job and has the right price, there is no good
reason for not using it.