7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
5:31 p.m.
On 07/02/13 22:06, Paul Davis wrote:
indeed, and if I wanted to use a lot of plugins that were not available for
Linux on a project I would use an OS that could run them ... on a second machine
if that was the way. If I want to use a tool somebody else has made then I need
to get the platform to run it on, and deal with their conditions for using it
... or find something different which fits my needs better. Certainly the
popularity of Steinberg protocols combined with their attitude to FLOSS is a
pain, though as you pointed out in a different reply plugins written for another
OS are problematic regardless of the protocol issues.
My preference for FLOSS determines many choices I make, but companies like
Steinberg see profits elsewhere and perhaps threats or irrelevance in the FLOSS
world. That's their choice, and mostly for me that means not using their type of
tool. Other companies however see profitable opportunities in the FLOSS
environment, though less so in audio than many other fields.
Simon
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So a decade
later it is no longer an oversight or mistake, it is now an
active "we don't care".
steinberg has been sold twice during that interval. you might feel that
FLOSS issues are important. i can assure you that anyone who ever felt
remotely that way at steinberg in 2001 is either no longer at the company
or is so irrelevant to what its current owners do that it makes no
difference.