4 Mar
2011
4 Mar
'11
8:17 p.m.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:30:58 -0500
Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Renato
<rennabh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with that (and thus I partially drop what I was
stating in the mail you replied to), but as I'm asking in other terms in
my email in reply to Kim, how much time does one really spend, on
average, tweaking a linux OS for being it ready for audio work? I
really don't think that much as myths want. And again, that time
invested is IMO the unavoidable trade off for using open source
software which you don't pay for
cheers
renato
who, as Kim spotted out, has never worked "seriously" in pro audio
software, but thinks that linux's difficulty is overrated
but pro level has nothing to do with user friendliness. I mean of
course we want the linux audio environment to improve, but that has
nothing to do with a pretty DE where you don't need to use the
terminal or tweak one or two .conf files
Actually I would disagree. Yes whether a tool can be sued for
professional projects is one thing, but the difference is in speed.
These days a professional level tool is one that allows you to
accomplish your task as quickly as possible with as few distractions
as possible. This is generally also inferred to be user
friendliness, but not necessarily, it does however mean that you
shouldn't need to spend time doing extra things that could be done
for you, like configure your OS just so you can work;)