3 Aug
2011
3 Aug
'11
10:11 a.m.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM, michael noble wrote:
http://www.korg.com/oasys indeed mentions Linux. _However_, and this
is an important "however", few people care about what's inside a Big
Plastic Box. People who do music like discussing Windows <> Linux <>
Mac switching, but have you ever seen a musician discussing a switch
from one keyboard workstation to another for the sake of a bloody OS
used in firmware? That kind of firmware doesn't contribute to decision
making (the one for a mobile phone or a tablet would, but it's an
entirely different market).
What does contribute to decision making re platform switch are
positive answers to the following questions:
1. What are the real benefits such as some features that would help me
to get from a tune in my head to a finished piece faster?
2. Will I be able to be as productive as I am now without spending
loads of time on redoing workflow from scratch?
3. Will I be able to use all the plugins I collected
(bought/downloaded) over years?
4. Will I be able to open my old projects and render them the way they
were rendered in the old DAW, with automation and all that jazz?
(optionally) 5. Will I have a good support service?
I know a lot of people who are ready to trade any of that for really
free (of charge, too) software. Would you like to know estimated
percentage of users who make music for life among them? :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
I'm
attracted by ideas and technologies. I don't have a habit of going
around and making a face if an interesting technology turns out to be
proprietary. You can't really tell someone (s)he isn't smart and the
idea isn't worth a penny just because his/her software isn't under GPL
(well, you can, but most people would think you are an asshole who
deserves a thrashing).
So then, out of curiosity more than anything else, why do Linux-based
proprietary products not fit in with a discussion about the promotion
of Linux as a platform for audio production?