11 Aug
2009
11 Aug
'09
12:07 p.m.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM, David Robillard<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 03:40 +0300, Chuckk Hubbard
wrote:
To be fair, what I responded to was cut out:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jens M
Andreasen<jens.andreasen(a)comhem.se> wrote:
I have met a lot of people into computer music over the years. I doubt
a single one of them would call themselves a "professional".
It's not 1975 anymore, recording things are used far, far more often by
"normal people" (musicians) than by Professional Recording
Engineers(R)(TM).
Either way, this line of thinking is nothing but an excuse. OK,
"professional" this and "professional" that. So what? Everything
should be unnecessarily difficult to set up and poorly built? Because
it's "professional"? No.
I call this nonsense EDD: excuse driven development. The world's
leading development methodology for creating garbage software.
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:10 +0300, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
I guess my thought was that people who want to use audio
professionally are less likely to make decisions based on what
requires the least effort, which seems to be the main bragging point
for OSX as well as the main complaint about Linux. How much do normal human beings need pro audio
production tools?
According to Apple marketing research, about 10% of perfectly normal
human beings plays an instrument - mostly either guitar or keyboard -
and would also like to use their PC as a home or portable recording
studio. This is the story behind why "GarageBand" is included in their
default application suite.
You could argue that that application is not "pro" or something, but it
is still the same infrastructure that ticks behind it as it is for other
audio applications, which is what is the point in this context. I don't know if I can really recommend Linux for
pro audio to normal
human beings... at least I should say, you need a lot of time, not easy
give up on things and a lot of patience...
Maybe I misinterpreted what Ralf meant by pro audio.
It doesn't seem like much new is being said here. No one has tried to
claim that Linux is easier to use out-of-the-box than Mac OSX, though
some have hinted it could be as easy; I don't know as I don't use
Ubuntu nor a heavyweight window manager. No one has tried to claim
that OSX can be customized to perform as well as Linux with the right
know-how, though I've cleverly avoided actually saying it can't be. I
don't think it can, but I have no reason to try. I've argued that
people who take what they do pretty seriously shouldn't shy away from
spending more time in order to know their tools more deeply, and some
have said that the same people shouldn't shy away from spending more
money for intuitive software, or spending more money for faster
hardware rather than tuning one's OS.
What anyone chooses is up to them, but I can't bring myself to agree
that someone who wants to take their control of their music/audio to
the umpteenth level should shy away from learning to compile a kernel
and edit a few configuration files. Whether that person is what is
understood by "professional" is another question. Others would
understand by "professional" someone who doesn't spend time on
anything his paying clients won't notice.
-Chuckk
--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com