1 Nov
2016
1 Nov
'16
3:35 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, jonetsu wrote:
No difference at all. None whatsoever.
It is amazing how the context is extrapolated and hyped to sustain
an activism of 'us and them'.
The context is Linux audio/music. Not illuminati vs. human nature or
some such.
Why shoot in one's own foot ?
Every sentence that you have written, quoted above, can be matched
equally by proprietary offerings. No difference at all, apart from the
name of the software products, and the number of people.
Every single notion brought in your text can be matched by u-he,
Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial products
that runs on Linux.
Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in Ardour are there because
someone who was outside of the development team looked at the code and
added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour developer :)
Now I may have taken your quote slightly out of context (I am not talking
security here) but there is a difference between open and closed
development. Closed development the user decides if the tool works for
them and uses it or not. With open projects, even if a user can't code, if
they put their ideas for new features out in public, the main developer
may not be interested or have time, but some other person may.
no difference at all? none whatever? A bit of an over statement.
Really, a good studio machine should be used only for music and not be
connected to outside networks anyway. It should not have a pile of desktop
applications on it. Have another machine for that. Open or closed, if the
tool works for you, use it. If the idea that all your code is open helps
you, use it. If you don't care that's fine too.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net