23 Sep
2016
23 Sep
'16
7:50 a.m.
On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote:
Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source
projects leading the field in other markets.
IMO that is the main contributor to the perceived animosity to companies
like Ableton from *some* open source developers.
There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes
contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without
having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights.
The big exception seems to be professional audio where almost all the
major players (Harrison is a notable exception) want to invent the wheel
and go it alone.
Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the Linux
Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we
still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul
Davis wrote:
[...]
What?
I repeat: that's not an innovation.
Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation?
Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link is
momentum behind it, along with the apple-style dictated protocol: take
it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design
discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and more
like a floss-like benevolent dictator style (think jack, or LV2).
The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually does
closed-source proprietary software publishes an API and reference
implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too.
That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that!
Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it,
pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the
hard part.
Ableton
have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts
of
> the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo).