11 Nov
2004
11 Nov
'04
2:40 a.m.
"Ivica Ico Bukvic" <ico(a)fuse.net> writes:
First off, I must say I am very flattered by your
interest in my opinion.
That being said, I am sure that Stanford (CCRMA) has something like it as
well as Eastman, University of Virginia, and perhaps even Columbia. Also
many other institutions that do electroacoustic music do some open-source
stuff albeit many of them do OS X exclusively. Apple enjoys strong patronage
from the academic community even though it poses as an oxymoronic solution
to those who seek true "freedom of expression" through use of their
computers. In part, this is the case (IMHO) because OS X offers superficial
ease of use coupled with eye-candy which is usually good enough for most
people. Not optimal, but good enough.
OS X is not *that* bad.
Like you, I much prefer the free-speech aspects of GNU/Linux. But, we
should never underestimate the competition.
Apple has a strong following among professional musicians, because
there are many excellent audio applications which install and work on
it with few problems. The realtime performance is quite impressive
right out of the box, without the days or weeks of tuning we do to get
comparable response with Linux. Most musicians don't want to spend
their time "fiddling with computers".
Lately, OS X has evolved into an adequate (not great) platform for
open software. Most Linux audio applications either already run on
it, or can probably be ported with modest effort.
There is still a large gap in hardware price/performance, but many
musicians consider that worth the time they save.
--
joq