On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:21:19 -0500, "Paul Davis" <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> said: Fool --- I'll eat your brains! All seriousness aside, I'd like to address the myriad responses I've received. First, I want to reiterate that I don't want to get into a war about morals. Moral philosophy is an old enterprise, and it's rate of progress in recent centuries has not been great (to quote Friedman). I'm a libertarian, I believe in the right to contract, so I believe in the right of a software producer to require a user to agree to an EULA or walk. I don't think this is really at all in conflict with my belief that our current copyright law is a little whack --- I think our contract law is just fine, and that's where I see the meat of the validity and enforceability of proprietary software licenses as coming from. Now, naturally, you might disagree --- and obviously, plenty of people here do. That's not the discussion I wanted to have, though! Something of that depth is better served by a blog post than a flamewar here, I think. That said, I hate to say it, but I think I'm going to go ahead and stir up some more controversy. I agree that, in many instances, linux audio probably meets and exceeds the "good enough" test --- that is, it either gets the job done flawlessly, or can be made to done so with a little work. Straight recording, mixing, and mastering are probably at this level, and I'd wager you can produce pro-quality stuff with relative ease using current tools in this realm. However, as far as synthesis, sampling, sequencing, and other assorted electronica, I don't think it really cuts the mustard --- at least for the cutting edge. Sure, it can do scene music and minimalism and abstract-avant- garde stuff. But take a listen to the latest from, say, Delerium, or Front Line Assembly --- how in the world are you going to pull that off with Hydrogen, ZynAdd, Seq24, rosegarden, muse, jack-rack, and LinuxSampler? Guitars and drums haven't changed in a while, nor has recording. But cutting-edge electronic music is defined by running on cutting-edge electronic technology. Go browse through musiciansfriend.com and take a look at all the various proprietary offerings in this department. Heck, just look at Project5 or FL studio and the plugins it comes with. You simply have more tools at your fingertips in the proprietary world. And further, I agree with Russ --- the sequencing side of things just isn't really there. Maybe for stuff that's supposed to sound realistic. But try programming a complex synth line, replete with legatos and extremely- small interval fragments, and add in automation of filfreq, reso, panning, etc. It's doable, but it's painful. And the more time you spend fighting an app, the less time you spend making music. There's a reason tb303 synth apps are so popular, and it *ain't* just because the tb303 hardware is rare --- it's because the truth is, it's a feckin' PITA to use. For the kind of stuff I'm interested in (see my above band references to get an idea), I think it is eminently clear that Linux isn't good enough. Maybe it is just me, but I have been struggling intensely for some time to get things to work out, and it just ain't happening. If anybody here has got some tracks that can prove me wrong, I'd love to hear 'em. And maybe I'll get back to Windows world and have the same problems --- but I sincerely doubt it. I'm not sure what it is --- some times, open source whomps up, sometimes, it just can't keep up. For the realm of music I'm in, it lags. Same thing for videogames (obviously). Maybe this will change with time, but with all the new stuff that's been going on, the gap has been widening if it's moved at all. This causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for myself, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I drank too much GNU kool-aid as a kid, or maybe it's all the years I've logged in emacs. Most likely, I'm just obsessive compulsive, and I like to be able to say "this is this and that is that." The fact that I can't yet figure out the rule for when open source is going to produce the better product is probably driving me slightly mad. That, and the fact that years of believing in Stallman gospel have probably deranged me a bit. Man, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I suppose my overarching point is, don't confuse "good enough" with "best." From my moral perspective, at least, it's simply a matter of what gives you the best cost-benefit ratio, and there are many, many factors which make up both parts of that ratio beyond simple dollars. I'll end this on a slightly unrelated note. When I see a beautiful piece of software, I want to remunerate the creators. Be that the gorgeously bump mapped characters in Halo 2, or the ultra slick interface of FL studio, I have a sincere appreciation for the time and effort that went into the production of that software, and a desire to share some of the joy it's use has given me with the producers in a way I know they'll appreciate --- cold, hard cash. Functionality is just as important as looks, and that's another thing which compels me to compensate the producer. Even if we ruled out the idea that I need to pay to play anyway, using a wonderful product makes me want to shell out. It's a way to ensure future output from the author. But what about when you have not-so-wonderful product to work with? Paying for that is a risk then. Assuming I didn't kill Specimen, if I asked you for a $200 donation to support the future of Specimen, you've got to hope that your cash is actually going to result in Specimen becoming, like, totally sweet. Considering that you don't really know me, that's understandably a bit to swallow. But it's worse than that --- you don't know if anybody else is going to donate! Your $200 might be wasted if you have no way of knowing if anybody else will contribute. $200 isn't even going to pay my rent --- if I only get your donation, I can't exactly quit my day job. The way I see it, if everyone had some way of knowing for absolute fact that if they put in their $200, they will get an absolutely awesome product, then there would be no problem with the quality of open source software. And a smarter person than myself might figure out a way to do just that. But as things are now, funding open source software via donations is a bet on the users part. And so long as the funding problem isn't solved, open source is not going to consistently lead the way. The fact of the matter is, people got bills to pay. There are other problems (not sure that's the right word), but this strikes me as perhaps the most fundamental one. If we figured out how to end-run it, then everything else might be moot and open source might rule the world. But so long as the problem exists, I don't think we're ever going to be in a world where the technical merits of open source beat proprietary for every possible task. And while technical merits aren't the whole deal, they are a signifcant part of it. Goddamn I'm getting long winded in my old age. There's something to chew on. Like Paul's brains, because I'm a DAMN ZOMBIE! -Pete

Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes: There is one thing you have to be aware of: if freedom to modify and redistribute and edit do not factor in the assessment of "best", then of course preexisting applications will win over stuff that still has to be written and completed. And with regard of design and coherence and originality, a team of 5 full-time programmers is different from 50 part-time programmers. The "Open Source" mantra that public development is tantamount with technically superior software is putting the cart before the horse. Software does not just fall off the trees. Free software gives you the opportunity to shape the state of the software you are working with. It puts the power into your own hand. Whether you are in a position to usefully wield it is a different question. Pete complains that maybe he has listened too much to Stallman. I am afraid if he did, he did not understand too much. Stallman is not a person who promises superior quality of free software: that would be the panacea of the "Open Software" camp. Stallman says that he refuses to use non-free software for ethical reasons. He does not preach that the grass is greener on his side. He just refuses to be fenced in on the other side, regardless of the color of grass. Fighting to get free software to do the job, sharing one's experiences, communicating with the developers all takes the state of free software forward. This progress remains for others to continue with even if at one point of time you run out of steam. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Pete Bessman <ninjadroid(a)gazuga.net> writes: Well, what you theatrically toss has not been Stallman's invention at all. I recommend you search for another scapegoat. He never promised you a Rosegarden. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Peter Bessman <ninjadroid(a)gazuga.net> writes: [...] I don't know what you believed in, but it certainly was not the GNU philosophy. The GNU philosophy is not concerned about quality of software. It is concerned about its availability and freedom. It's just silly, as you apparently don't have a clue about what you presume to be tossing. More likely the Open Source mantra about OSS being a superior development model. It was just a pun. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:15:48PM -0500, a Zombie wrote: *too much* I used to make music with just an old workstation (Korg M1), so I was used to live with limitations. Maybe that helps me to get along now. Part of what I wanted to have was a good simple sampler for Drums and some FX. Specimen stalled just when it was about to become a solution thanks to multiple jack outs. But currently, I'm not interested in using samples, besides a few effects, maybe. Prefer synthesized drums via Om now. Always dreamed of a nice modular synth and couldn't afford one of the propietary offerings back when I was ok with using Windows. Now there is Om. It's quite good and the next release will be realy good. I helped Dave a bit with UI decisions and enjoyed it very much. Couldn't take part in the development of any closed software like that (even if someone would listen, I wouldn't like to pay for my own ideas later on). The online support can't be surpased, it's not very scalable, though. Somewhen around the Milennium, when I had no internet access and didn't know shit about Linux and co, I bought Cubase VST. Was a great tool, except when it crashed and took Windows with it. I hate to spend money on crashing software. I would have had to buy an update to make it run on a newer than 98 Windows. Win 98 doesn't like PCI Express. This lockin/ update stuff is one very big reason for me to stay away from propietary software. Another one is copy-protection and how it gets in the way of hounest customers only, as the crackers laugh. I like the idea of being able to revisit projects after several years. Open Source makes this far more likely to work. I hate the idea to put hours and hours of work into closed file formats. It's like putting my work into black boxes that are someone else's property. How nice of them to grant me acces to my own work! With DRM and stuff this can only become worse. MIDI sequencing is still rather painful on Linux, but can only become better. MusE is quite close, there are just some nasty issues. I will accept a hit to my productivity (have to do some others things, anyway) and rather stay in control. Finaly, I make music for the fun of it, not for being the best. In this age of diversity and plentifulness, creativity is much about being just that bit different, I think (being all different means burning bridges). Zombies and Windows might just fit, though. Cheers, Thorsten Wilms

Chris and Pete, please DO pay attention to On 2/21/06, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote: Regards, Dmitry.

Very arguable. I find him being right about weapons. Capitalism in its pure "as is" form is very anti-human. It is very effective and rational, but we are not robots. Moreover, our irrational and ineffective parts are making us humans. Living in a slavery of mind and soul is not what's called Life.

[Pete Bessman] I keep a good 150 or so .arr files around, stemming from the late 80s, early 90s, back when I used to do MIDI-only work with Cubase on an ST. A few years ago, I wanted to revisit/-edit my music from that time. So I turned to Steinberg to help me in decoding the files. The short version: I asked for file format docs, they said "Buy the latest Cubase instead", I said "What would I run it on?", they said "Mac or Win", I said "I own neither and don't plan to", they said "Then you're SOL". I don't know about you, but denying me unfettered access to my very own data certainly meets my definition of "evil". Cheers, Tim

On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 15:57, Pete Bessman wrote: It's not bullshit. It's just misdirection. If you take out the subjective language, David just said: (Assuming for the benefit of his logic that you do think weapons producers are mostly decent as individuals and that their opponents may succeed in damaging their livelihoods.) Look closely at this. What do you see? The statement is true. It's not even controversial. But it doesn't add anything, because it isn't reasonable to suppose that we will have the same response to the fates of weapons producers as of authors of quality music software, nor to the ends of their opponents. It's only there to make you jump to a conclusion about one thing based on your emotional response to another. It's logical, but it's brainless. In any case, my point was that you shouldn't have to be making this sort of calculus. If it's not business, do it out of love, not because a business would do it. Chris

On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:04, Peter Bessman wrote: Arf. Well, I strongly disagree with you on it -- but let's not go into that. I think you're probably right about the expectation. Chris

Chris, pay no attention to Dave. That message was bloody brilliant! Very enlightening, head slapping "Oh man! That's IT!" read. You should really consider expanding that and putting it up somewhere in essay form, they're are a quintillion people who could benefit by reading it. -- Pete Bessman http://gazuga.net "So this baby seal walks into a club."

On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:12, Dave Robillard wrote: No, the fact of people having been put out of work is not itself a victory for anyone. Sure -- you'd certainly hope that good things are also a consequence of the work, and they go on the other side of the ledger. I'm not in the market. I'm not competing. Because I'm not competing, someone else's failure is not a success for me. Chris

surely free software can cause unemployed people, but at the same time free software also can cause that closed software vendors benefit in an other way: They simply have to create better products to keep their business running. And after all this helps to secure employments. Just my two cents. Best regards ce

On Wed, 2006-22-02 at 10:32 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: [snip] Havn't we all... :) -DR-