26 Nov
2004
26 Nov
'04
5:35 p.m.
I assume that RME has developped their own protocols, which they don't
want to share. And frankly I can understand their point of view, because
I think an awfull lot of time (=money) must have been spent to develop
an efficient protocol.
1. So they haven't invested the a comparable amount of time into
Hammerfall series?
2. I can only understand the point of view of open source developers
here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that
they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of
which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're
free as in beer/speech.
That said i really don't understand the point of view of those few how
actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in
a similar position), no offense intended.
The RME story also goes for the firewire interface of
M-Audio. They use
a DM1000 based platform, so initially we thought the device could be
supported by FreeBob. But apparently they modified the reference
firmware, making it (possibly) non-conformant to the 1394TA specs. As
such these devices cannot be supported by FreeBob directly. Maybe if we
have a working driver, we can convince the M-Audio people to share the
nescessary info so that we can support their devices also.
Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future.
Marek
26 Nov
26 Nov
5:48 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:34:17AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Which seems like it's the beginning of end for
linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future.
How can we fight it? I've been holding off on a firewire interface, but
now maybe I just won't get one...
6:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:48, Tim Hockin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:34:17AM +0100, Marek
Peteraj wrote:
I'm not sure how right now. But i really think there's a lot more of use
rme/maudio customers out there than we might actually think.
And it's obvious that the numbers will grow.
A survey might help us to figure this out..
Marek
Which seems like it's the beginning of end
for linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future.
How can we fight it? I've been holding off on a firewire interface, but
now maybe I just won't get one... 
6:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
<SNIP>
This I agree with, but the best way to fight for it (speaking as a
business man) is to develop a real market for it. We need thousands of
buyers. Develop the market and hardware manufacturers will come.
- Mark
2. I can only understand the point of view of open
source developers
here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that
they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of
which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're
free as in beer/speech.
That was their choice. Right?
That said i really don't understand the point of
view of those few how
actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in
a similar position), no offense intended.
RME's position, and I am only guessing here, is that they would be
happy to release info to the Open Source community __IF__ that
information didn't help their competitors develop hardware that
competed with RME. It is natural for people who have spent money to
want to protect it's value. We are that way with our own purchases,
correct? I (and I think you...) would not be happy if I bought
something and then it stopped working, or if the company you bought it
from stopped supporting it. RME is the same way. They invest hundreds
of thousands, if not millions of Euro's developing new hardware ideas.
They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the
technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy
and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't
make money and goes out of business.
What's so hard to understand?
This is not just about info out into the Linux world. What is released
here is available to people making hardware for the Windows and Mac
markets to remember.
The RME story also goes for the firewire
interface of M-Audio. They use
a DM1000 based platform, so initially we thought the device could be
supported by FreeBob. But apparently they modified the reference
firmware, making it (possibly) non-conformant to the 1394TA specs. As
such these devices cannot be supported by FreeBob directly. Maybe if we
have a working driver, we can convince the M-Audio people to share the
nescessary info so that we can support their devices also.
Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future.
6:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
How? To achieve 1ms less latency?
Perhaps it's here already. I think there's more of us RME or M-Audio
customers than one might think.
Marek
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
<SNIP>
Sure but the result is the _same_ with respect to what they
deliver(state of art technology), which has the same value for me. Not
the same with respect to what you get in the end.(a non-functioning
device you paid a lot for, just because this and that)
2. I can only understand the point of view of
open source developers
here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that
they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of
which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're
free as in beer/speech.
That was their choice. Right? That said i really don't understand the point
of view of those few how
actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in
a similar position), no offense intended.
RME's position, and I am only guessing here, is that they would be
happy to release info to the Open Source community __IF__ that
information didn't help their competitors develop hardware that
competed with RME. It is natural for people who have spent money to
want to protect it's value. We are that way with our own purchases,
correct? I (and I think you...) would not be happy if I bought
something and then it stopped working,
Worse. It actually never worked in my case.
or if the company you bought it
from stopped supporting it.
Worse. They never did in my case.
RME is the same way. They invest hundreds
of thousands, if not millions of Euro's developing new hardware ideas.
Hence the analogy with oss developers. They do that too without being
cowards and misers.
They create software to support it and make it work.
Then all the
technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy
and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't
make money and goes out of business.
Did this happen?
See how many RME cards are supported. Almost all. Perhaps all except
fireface. Did someone from russia or taiwan knock-off a copy? Does RME
suffer from us having alsa drivers? Are russian engineers or taiwanese
engineers(envy24 btw AFAIK) not smart enough to come up with their own
superb design? Is it too hard for smart people to reverse-engineer?
In other words - what are you talking about?
What's so hard to understand?
Pretty much everything. Considering that they have used proprietary
protocols in their hammerfall series anyway.
Which seems
like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future.
This I agree with, but the best way to fight for it (speaking as a
business man) is to develop a real market for it. We need thousands of
buyers. Develop the market and hardware manufacturers will come. 
10:15 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
For anyone keeping score...
1 RME PCI Card
1 RME Multiface
1 RME HDSP9625
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:51:16 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
How? To achieve 1ms less latency?
Perhaps it's here already. I think there's more of us RME or M-Audio
customers than one might think.
Marek
--
"When you get to the end of all the light you know and it's time to
step into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing that one of
two things shall happen: either you will be given something solid to
stand on, or you will be taught how to fly." --Dr. Edward Teller
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
<SNIP>
Sure but the result is the _same_ with respect to what they
deliver(state of art technology), which has the same value for me. Not
the same with respect to what you get in the end.(a non-functioning
device you paid a lot for, just because this and that)
2. I can only understand the point of view of
open source developers
here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that
they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of
which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're
free as in beer/speech.
That was their choice. Right? That said i really don't understand the point
of view of those few how
actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in
a similar position), no offense intended.
RME's position, and I am only guessing here, is that they would be
happy to release info to the Open Source community __IF__ that
information didn't help their competitors develop hardware that
competed with RME. It is natural for people who have spent money
to
want to protect it's value. We are that way with our own purchases,
correct? I (and I think you...) would not be happy if I bought
something and then it stopped working,
Worse. It actually never worked in my case.
or if the company you bought it
from stopped supporting it.
Worse. They never did in my case.
RME is the same way. They invest hundreds
of thousands, if not millions of Euro's developing new hardware ideas.
Hence the analogy with oss developers. They do that too without being
cowards and misers.
They create software to support it and make it
work. Then all the
technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy
and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't
make money and goes out of business.
Did this happen?
See how many RME cards are supported. Almost all. Perhaps all except
fireface. Did someone from russia or taiwan knock-off a copy? Does RME
suffer from us having alsa drivers? Are russian engineers or taiwanese
engineers(envy24 btw AFAIK) not smart enough to come up with their own
superb design? Is it too hard for smart people to reverse-engineer?
In other words - what are you talking about?
What's so hard to understand?
Pretty much everything. Considering that they have used proprietary
protocols in their hammerfall series anyway.
Which
seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future.
This I agree with, but the best way to fight for it (speaking as a
business man) is to develop a real market for it. We need thousands of
buyers. Develop the market and hardware manufacturers will come. 
27 Nov
27 Nov
1:01 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
--- David Stephens <linuxrootuser(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For anyone keeping score...
1 RME PCI Card
1 RME Multiface
1 RME HDSP9625
1 RME Digi9652
1 M-Audio 2496 i think that's what it is
2 M-Audio 1010lt i think that's what they are
1 midiman USB 8x8 i guess that counts
ron
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:51:16 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
Sure but the result is the _same_ with respect to what they
to
developing new hardware ideas.
Perhaps all except
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek
Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk>
wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > 2. I can only understand the point of view of
open source developers
> > here, since they also invested an
awfull lot
of time (and money that
> > they didn't get back!) into
developing linux
audio applications, many of
> > which are state-of-art at least with
respect
to technology. And they're
free as in beer/speech.
That was their choice. Right? deliver(state of art technology), which has the
same value for me. Not
the same with respect to what you get in the
end.(a non-functioning
device you paid a lot for, just because this and
that)
>
> > That said i really don't understand the point
of view of those few
how
> > actually kindof defend the position of
RME (or
any other manufacturer in
> > a similar position), no offense
intended.
>
> RME's position, and I am only guessing here, is
that they would be
> happy to release info to the Open Source
community __IF__ that
> information didn't help their
competitors
develop hardware that
competed
with RME.
How? To achieve 1ms less latency?
> It is natural for people who have spent money > want to protect it's value. We are that
way with
our own purchases,
> correct? I (and I think you...) would not be
happy if I bought
something
and then it stopped working,
Worse. It actually never worked in my case.
or if the company you bought it
from stopped supporting it.
Worse. They never did in my case.
> RME is the same way. They invest hundreds
> of thousands, if not millions of Euro's
Hence the analogy with oss developers. They do
that too without being
cowards and misers.
> They create software to support it and make it
work. Then all the
> technical information goes into the public
domain and some low cost
> manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or
somewhere
else knocks off a copy
> and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys
RME
hardware, RME doesn't
make
money and goes out of business.
Did this happen?
See how many RME cards are supported. Almost all. fireface. Did someone from russia or taiwan
knock-off a copy? Does RME
suffer from us having alsa drivers? Are russian
engineers or taiwanese
engineers(envy24 btw AFAIK) not smart enough to
come up with their own
superb design? Is it too hard for smart people to
reverse-engineer?
In other words - what are you talking about?
used proprietary
What's so hard to understand?
Pretty much everything. Considering that they have protocols in their hammerfall series anyway.
> > Which seems like it's the beginning of end for
linux pro-audio hw
> > support if we don't fight for it.
Right now it
concerns just me, but it
> > might concern everyone in the near
future.
>
> This I agree with, but the best way to fight for
it (speaking as a
> business man) is to develop a real market
for
it. We need thousands of
> buyers. Develop the market and hardware
manufacturers will come.
Perhaps it's here already. I think there's more of
us RME or M-Audio
customers than one might think.
Marek
--
"When you get to the end of all the light you know
and it's time to
step into the darkness of the unknown, faith is
knowing that one of
two things shall happen: either you will be given
something solid to
stand on, or you will be taught how to fly." --Dr.
Edward Teller
4:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 01:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Mackie designs
hardware and manufactures it in the USA. Behringer reverse engineers
Mackie's (among others) design, replaces some parts with cheaper ones,
and manufactures in China.
Mackie has lost a lot of money as a result and has had to move some
production abroad.
The folks at RME are not stupid.
Lee
They create
software to support it and make it work. Then all the
technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy
and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't
make money and goes out of business.
Did this happen?
5:36 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the
long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly
ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal
recourse:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html
IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is.
Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue
is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux
driver, fine.
Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer
and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the
design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to
design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it
yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves -
they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of
business. In the case of the "Swizz Army Tuner", the original designers
were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them
_even if they won_ so could not take action.
I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the
hardware business is.
Lee
Did this
happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. 
6:03 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the
long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly
ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal
recourse:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html
IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is.
Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue
is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux
driver, fine.
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally,
open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be
fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my
asbestos underwear?
Jan
Did this
happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer.
6:21 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say
this. Personally,
open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be
fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my
asbestos underwear?
Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away...
So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source
driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at "one free
FireFace"...
Lee
6:31 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Greetings:
Why not contact the guys at 4Front, the OSS/Linux folks ? They have a
lot of experience with writing audio drivers under NDAs and releasing
binary-only stuff.
Best,
dp
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to
say this. Personally,
open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be
fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my
asbestos underwear?
Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away...
So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source
driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at "one free
FireFace"...
Lee
7:01 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] RME is no more - Open Source Audio/Graphics Card
Apropos of this discussion,
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
-ry
9:13 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 17:38 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings:
Why not contact the guys at 4Front, the OSS/Linux folks ? They have a
lot of experience with writing audio drivers under NDAs and releasing
binary-only stuff.
Well, we would rather have an ALSA driver... I suspect there are a few
ALSA developers who would be willing to write a closed source NDA driver
in exchange for a FireFace and a bit of cash. I would contact RME
myself but I haven't worked with FireWire and have never written an ALSA
driver from scratch (though I have submitted some patches).
Lee
28 Nov
28 Nov
6:52 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Lee and Jan,
i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :)
I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it
themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out
documentation or perhaps one free unit.
My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell
that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME
specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from
any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot
story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :)
The best bet would be to find a adat/smux card manufacturer which is
able to release specs and keep the rest as far away from your pc as
possible. :)
Marek
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone
to say this. Personally,
open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be
fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my
asbestos underwear?
Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away...
So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source
driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at "one free
FireFace"...
8:35 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
--- Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote:
100%. Flame away...
I really hope you don't do that. RME has provided
"Pro" grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it
in order to become a legitimate alternative to
proprietary solutions. I hope you consider how much
work has gone into Linux Audio and how difficult it is
to develop that type of business relationship.
Whether you are in the right or wrong, is it
inconcievable for you to act for the interests of many
people by selling the unit and getting something else?
I made a mistake on this mailing list that was
regretable because it was bad for Linux Audio. Marek,
you know what I'm talking about. If it helps, use me
as an example of what not to do.
ron
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
> Man, I've been waiting all day for
someone to
say this. Personally,
> open source is not a religion for me so a
closed
source driver would be
> fine and dandy. Let the flames commence -
now
where did I put my
asbestos
underwear?
Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it
So, the next question is, what would it take to
make a closed source
driver happen? They should start the bidding on
alsa-devel at "one free
FireFace"...
Lee and Jan,
i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :)
I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset
because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd
need to provide it
themselves, which means a lot more money than just
handing out
documentation or perhaps one free unit.
My point of view - either open source alsa driver,
or i'll just sell
that unit. And now that they have accused me of
causing damage to RME
specifically because of this thread, i can only say,
i'll stay away from
any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like
to see a slashdot
story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for
themselves. :) The best bet would be to find a adat/smux card
manufacturer which is
able to release specs and keep the rest as far away
from your pc as
possible. :)
Marek
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
9:25 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:35, R Parker wrote:
--- Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
My intention wasn't to post that on /. at least not now. I was thinking
out loud. Of course, in case we did a market survey it would definitely
be needed.
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote:
100%. Flame away...
I really hope you don't do that. On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
> Man, I've been waiting all day for
someone to
say this. Personally,
> open source is not a religion for me so a
closed
source driver would be
> fine and dandy. Let the flames commence -
now
where did I put my
asbestos
underwear?
Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it
So, the next question is, what would it take to
make a closed source
driver happen? They should start the bidding on
alsa-devel at "one free
FireFace"...
Lee and Jan,
i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :)
I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset
because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd
need to provide it
themselves, which means a lot more money than just
handing out
documentation or perhaps one free unit.
My point of view - either open source alsa driver,
or i'll just sell
that unit. And now that they have accused me of
causing damage to RME
specifically because of this thread, i can only say,
i'll stay away from
any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like
to see a slashdot
story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for
themselves. :) RME has provided
"Pro" grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it
in order to become a legitimate alternative to
proprietary solutions.
Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the
name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side.
They got a lot of units sold in return and built a very good reputation
based on that fact and this went beyond the linux audio world i believe.
I hope you consider how much
work has gone into Linux Audio
But that's what i'm talking about. So much effort, oustanding
technologies(although i know the authors won't admit ;)
and they(hw manufacturers) don't care!
and how difficult it is
to develop that type of business relationship.
There is no relationship. The only real manufacturer from the POV of
linux audio is audioscience(.com), which unfortunately does only
broadcast hw.
They do ALSA drivers, provide support and invest their time and money in
doing so. They deserve highest respect for that considering the current
situation.
That's how it should be. And this is what we should fight for.
Whether you are in the right or wrong, is it
inconcievable for you to act for the interests of many
people by selling the unit and getting something else?
Not sure i understand. I'm about to sell my fireface copy as i declared
previously. Of course if there's any way i could help out other people
here in keeping the unit, i'm prepared to do so.
Marek
3:12 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 04:35 -0800, R Parker wrote:
I really hope you don't do that. RME has provided
"Pro" grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it
in order to become a legitimate alternative to
proprietary solutions. I hope you consider how much
work has gone into Linux Audio and how difficult it is
to develop that type of business relationship.
Actually, i can put myself in their shoes pretty easily.
(years ago)
"Hey, can we give access to the Open Source folks to our design
documentation so that they can write Linux drivers?"
"Well, is it going to provide to our competition sand to pour into our
gas tank?"
"No, the required info does not go too deep into our hardware secrets."
"Then go for it."
(a while later)
"Hey, look, the Open Source people wrote the driver, and they're giving
us free advertising on their forums. Sales are increasing. They're
depicting us as the good guys who are doing the right thing."
"Cool."
(later on, Fireface is released)
"Can we release the design info to the Open Source people so that they
can write a Linux driver?"
"No, because Fireface is different, everyone in the industry will be
able to do instant replicas of our technology."
(a while later)
"Hey, we're on Slashdot, we're depicted as the big bad monopolist who
keeps all their technology proprietary and does not let poor Open Source
folks play with their toys."
"Really? Did MOTU get the same kind of bad publicity?"
"No."
"Well, i guess this is the reward for being nice guys and involving
ourselves with the Open Source stuff. We won't repeat this mistake, i
hope everyone else in the industry learned the lesson as well."
Don't get me wrong, i'd love to see an Open Source driver for the
Fireface. But if it's true that it would reveal too much info, then i
understand them.
...Or it could be a management change and now it's "company policy" to
not dance to the Open Source tune. :-/
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
3:38 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
"Hey, we're on Slashdot, we're depicted
as the big bad monopolist who
keeps all their technology proprietary and does not let poor Open Source
folks play with their toys."
Nothing like that happened. It's just so that people are informed and
warned so that they don't end up with $1500 worth of useless
hardware(unless you install windows).
"Really? Did MOTU get the same kind of bad
publicity?"
"No."
Yes, from the start. Just as any other company that didn't or doesn't
support open source.
"Well, i guess this is the reward for being nice
guys and involving
ourselves with the Open Source stuff. We won't repeat this mistake, i
hope everyone else in the industry learned the lesson as well."
Don't get me wrong, i'd love to see an Open Source driver for the
Fireface. But if it's true that it would reveal too much info, then i
understand them.
And honestly i don't understand you. Go to the audioscience site, have a
look in the drivers section and look who does the drivers.
And they could have had their super-duper tradesecrets aswell.
Marek
3:52 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:37:39 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
This is an interesting POV. I personally do not care one bit if things
are Open Source or not. I install and use what works best. For this
reason I am still in both worlds, windows and Linux. Windows works
better then Linux for almost all of my needs, but Linux is always
improving and the development is fast.
I do not think I'll EVER care if things are Open Source the way you
do. The PC is just a tool to me. It's immaterial (to me) that drivers
or applications can be changed. It's immaterial (to me) since I cannot
program. So what that I get to look at the source? So what that ever
shifting people can continue to support it? I think I'm closer
(meaning dumb about software) to the average musician than most Linux
programmers are.
All I want are tools to feed my addiction. Once you become a hopeless
addict you are used to spending all your money on momentary highs and
then crashing in pain when the drug wears off. I own Guitar Center
another $75 for a Pro Tools update. There's a message on my answering
machine telling me to come there and give them money. I'm pitiful, but
I'm on my way out the door to give them cash. I don't even know what
this update gives me. I just update and update and update. (Not unlike
my Gentoo box building source code every day of the week...) ;-)
Maybe I need a 12-step program? ;-)
- Mark
"Really? Did MOTU get the same kind of bad
publicity?"
"No."
Yes, from the start. Just as any other company that didn't or doesn't
support open source.
3:44 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed
source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004. As Jan
said, open source is not a religion for every Linux user, and like it or
not, if you have superior hardware and good drivers there are many Linux
users who will buy your gear, open source or not.
Lee
4:03 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 20:44, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Are you sure? I don't know but i've literally seen tons of complaints.
It scared me away and i just stick with my old g400.
Marek
I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004.
4:13 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 23:02 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I am just judging from reports on LKML. There seem to be a LOT of
people using this driver successfully. The consensus on LKML seems to
be that the Nvidia driver is of high quality. The Nvidia folks really
seem to stay on top of kernel development, and the driver usually works
with the latest kernel.org kernel, unlike some vendors who build one
module for one kernel version and claim to "support Linux" because it
works with RH9 or something equally ancient.
Just my $0.02 of course.
Lee
That's a perfectly valid point. But for
every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004.
Are you sure? I don't know but i've literally seen tons of complaints.
It scared me away and i just stick with my old g400.
9:13 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:13, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 23:02 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
I am just judging from reports on LKML. There seem to be a LOT of
people using this driver successfully. The consensus on LKML seems to
be that the Nvidia driver is of high quality. The Nvidia folks really
seem to stay on top of kernel development, and the driver usually works
with the latest kernel.org kernel, unlike some vendors who build one
module for one kernel version and claim to "support Linux" because it
works with RH9 or something equally ancient.
We're running NVIDIA graphics cards and the NVIDIA driver on over 100
systems where I work (because no other card/driver combination can do 3D
as well - using IVS Fledermaus). Almost all of these systems are SMP,
most are state of the art. We have little to no problems with the
drivers.
Jan
That's a perfectly valid point. But for
every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004.
Are you sure? I don't know but i've literally seen tons of complaints.
It scared me away and i just stick with my old g400. 
5:33 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:02:13 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 20:44, Lee Revell wrote:
I'd certainly back it up. In the communities of users of some open
source projects with a heavy 3D bent (e.g. the Flightgear simulator),
it seems like most use nVidia and are quite happy. To the extent
that there've been issues, they've been with ATI cards. I don't
doubt that you've seen lots of complaints from nVidia users; but I
suspect it's because of population size.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Are you sure? I don't know but i've literally seen tons of complaints.
It scared me away and i just stick with my old g400. I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source
drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because
their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004. 
29 Nov
29 Nov
3:42 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 20:44, Lee Revell wrote:
I have ATI Radeon 9800 binary driver and while it works (except of
shame of being able to run only _one_ X server at a time) I am not
particularly excited about it:
- need to recompile external kernel module everytime I upgrade kernel
- need to install ATI openGL libs which override openGL from debian
package (mesa) in a nasty way (so I need to force install, which creates
problem when I upgrade libxmesa packages which I need installed because
openGl programs depend on them, I think this can be solved somehow but
it requires fairly deep knowledge of what's going on, not something you
can expect from general public).
it was similar with nvidia (which I used to have before I got ATI).
both of these are poorly integrated into distributions and are pain
to use. Yes I am happy that I can watch openGl xscreensaver hacks (I
mostly have ATI 9800 card because it can handle 1920x1200 on DVI) but
compared to the rest of the distro they stick out like a sore thumb.
erik
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Are you sure? I don't know but i've literally seen tons of complaints.
It scared me away and i just stick with my old g400. I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004. 
28 Nov
28 Nov
6:28 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
That's me. I admit that I'm not an Open Source purist, my kernel is
tainted by a closed source Nvidia driver so that I can play UT2004 on
Linux. What are my alternatives? Play UT2004 under Windows? That's not
going to happen. What are the alternatives for Linux pro audio users?
(1) Linux & closed source drivers. (2)Windows & closed source
everything. (3) Mac & closed source drivers. (4) Build your own open
source based audio interfaces. (5) As was mentioned before, "start a
dialogue with Audioscience". If RME has a Fireface 800 osx driver it
shouldn't be that hard to port to Linux. Open Source software is winning
some impressive battles, but it's not going to win them all. "Rome
wasn't built in a day" if you understand what I mean.
Rick B
I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004. As Jan
said, open source is not a religion for every Linux user, and like it or
not, if you have superior hardware and good drivers there are many Linux
users who will buy your gear, open source or not.
Lee
6:42 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:31:38 -0500, Rick B <zajelo3(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
I think the real answer to the RME/Fireface problem is to appeal to
their pocket book. If there was a petition to get a driver done (open
source/closed source I don't care - we can argue that one out later)
with a promise to buy, or a partial purchase through RME up front with
the balance to follow when they make the driver work, then if there
was enough money in it to interest them they would have to do it.
500 unit sales at $800 US each (or whatever that unit costs) would be
a no-brainer for RME and the driver would probably exist in a matter
or weeks. I doubt RME would turn down $400K revenue and likely $100K
profit just because it was Linux and they were being political.
Possibly the real number of signatories would only have to be 50 or
100 to get them to notice. It's an opportunity for us to show we're
real. (If we want to...)
However, a few folks, most of who never bought anything from RME
before, threatening to not buy in the future is unlikely (in my
simplistic mind) to incentivise them do anything.
For me, even being out of work right now, I'd sign up to buy a unit if
I had a promise from RME to support the device under Alsa. That would
be a first, I think, having the manufacturer actually agree to write,
maintain and support their hardware under Alsa, wouldn't it?
Just my 2 cents for the 20th time today. (See what happens when KDE
apps stop working and I have too much time on my hands? Who said Linux
was more stable than Windows anyway?) ;-)
- Mark
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
That's me. I admit that I'm not an Open Source purist, my kernel is
tainted by a closed source Nvidia driver so that I can play UT2004 on
Linux. What are my alternatives? Play UT2004 under Windows? That's not
going to happen. What are the alternatives for Linux pro audio users?
(1) Linux & closed source drivers. (2)Windows & closed source
everything. (3) Mac & closed source drivers. (4) Build your own open
source based audio interfaces. (5) As was mentioned before, "start a
dialogue with Audioscience". If RME has a Fireface 800 osx driver it
shouldn't be that hard to port to Linux. Open Source software is winning
some impressive battles, but it's not going to win them all. "Rome
wasn't built in a day" if you understand what I mean.
Rick B
I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source drivers
into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY
nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia user
there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004. As Jan
said, open source is not a religion for every Linux user, and like it or
not, if you have superior hardware and good drivers there are many Linux
users who will buy your gear, open source or not.
Lee
8:45 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com>om>:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Religion? I always thought having open source was pragmatic in a deep
way. Oh, and it was there first. You wouldn't have a mail-client
without it. You would sit in the dark and pray.
For the sake of it I put in my 2 cents as well:
RME's decision to release HDSP tech info was intelligent.
Their decision to not release Fireface tech info is smart at most.
Wolfgang
I really like the philosophy of not letting any
closed source
drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because
their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working.
That's a perfectly valid point. But for every disgruntled nvidia
user there are 100 who are just happy to be able to play UT2004. As
Jan said, open source is not a religion for every Linux user, and
like it or not, if you have superior hardware and good drivers there
are many Linux users who will buy your gear, open source or not.
Lee 
30 Nov
30 Nov
9:30 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer
Wolfgang Woehl <tito(a)rumford.de> writes:
RME's decision to release HDSP tech info was
intelligent.
Their decision to not release Fireface tech info is smart at most.
My friend just bought a fireface; too bad it gets even harder for him
to use GNU/Linux.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef(a)esben-stien.name
http://www.esben-stien.name
irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact
[sip|iax]:b0ef@esben-stien.name
1 Dec
1 Dec
8:11 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer
Esben Stien <executiv(a)online.no>no>:
Wolfgang Woehl <tito(a)rumford.de> writes:
It's a path I couldn't afford to follow -- neither economically nor
technically.
Wolfgang
RME's decision to release HDSP tech info was
intelligent.
Their decision to not release Fireface tech info is smart at most.
My friend just bought a fireface; too bad it gets even harder for him
to use GNU/Linux. 
28 Nov
28 Nov
1:12 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo,
Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote:
Closed source drivers are *the* evil force threatening open source
and free software. Closed source drivers means no open source drivers,
that's a simple fact.
Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market)
demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the
handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The "just make my
hardware work" type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source
drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of
drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source
drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia
makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software
drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you
cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source
drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux
community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only
drivers, NVidia rulez.
If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine
with me. There are still enough alternatives. But think about this:
There are no alternatives in the graphics card market anymore. Think
about, why this situation is so?
In this regard, providing closed source drivers and not providing docs
is even worse than not providing specifications only. It's a trojan
horse, and a big part of the Linux community bites it.
"Just working" may be enough for most users, but it is not enough for
me. And that's not because I would be an RMS zealot (at least, RMS is
smart enough, to not let the Trojan horse in). It's simply, what
decades of open source history have told those, who know about it:
It's not Linux, that's the threat to the Big Bosses, it's the idea of
Free Software.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is
valid - clearly it is.
Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue
is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux
driver, fine.
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally,
open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be
fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my
asbestos underwear?
1:45 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers
the (market)
demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the
handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The "just make my
hardware work" type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source
drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of
drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source
drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia
makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software
drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you
cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source
drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux
community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only
Gone are the beautiful days, closed already (their 650, 750 and parhelia
series - binary only)
Oh BTW, just in case :)
http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html
If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine
with me. There are still enough alternatives.
We're risking a case where the alternatives would soon be redundant
technically or discontinued. And firewire is "der letzte schrei", almost
every manufacturer has got or prepares his own firewire product.
Marek
2:51 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:12:49 +0100
Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source
drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia
makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software
drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you
cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source
drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux
community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only
drivers, NVidia rulez.
Well, Matrox *does* suck. I bought a Matrox G550 because it was
an upper-end card with an open driver. I repeat: the open driver
was the biggest reason I bought a Matrox, and not another, card.
So what happened? I spent over a year trying and failing to get
a working 3D setup. What I got instead was constant hard lockups
requiring a full system reset, and X log files filling up with
error messages from the DRI drivers before the reset. Even with
journalling filesystems, that's unacceptable. Passing the info on
to Matrox merely got responses that OpenGL/3D under Linux was not
supported. Passing the info on to the DRI project folks got no
response at all; further queries revealed that the DRI project's
Matrox experts effectively aren't involved in the DRI project
anymore, so now no open source developers are working on the Matrox
drivers. A little bit of time spent in the XF86/X.org/DRI bug
tracking systems will show similar Matrox bugs that don't get any
responses from the developers.
So what to do? I need halfway-decent 3D performance for my work.
Find a new line of work? Or buy a used old GF4 on ebay for $50?
I wish nVidia's drivers were open. But the fact that they're not
is a complete turnoff only if there is an acceptable alternative.
Sticking with Matrox when I cannot get my work done with Matrox
is not an acceptable alternative.
I suspect many people feel the same way about closed source audio
drivers. It's not that people don't value open drivers, or do not
care about this issue. It's more a question of whether someone
values open drivers so much that they're willing to forsake being
able to do particular things with their music.
For many (most? dunno.) users of proprietary software, free software
alternatives exist that will do everything they want, and do it well.
But for many others, that's not true. And telling those users to
simply forego doing what they want or need to do as a stand for a
cause is a very big request. Of course, people have sacrificed their
economic health, and much more, for the cause of freedom before. But
not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software; rather,
it's been the freedoms accompanying equality of race or gender or
religious background under the law.
Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software
one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your
choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people
and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing
their financial security for that freedom.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
3:02 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:50:40 -0500, Chris Metzler
<cmetzler(a)speakeasy.net> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:12:49 +0100
<SNIP>
Well, Matrox *does* suck. I bought a Matrox G550
because it was
an upper-end card with an open driver. I repeat: the open driver
was the biggest reason I bought a Matrox, and not another, card.
So what happened? I spent over a year trying and failing to get
a working 3D setup. What I got instead was constant hard lockups
requiring a full system reset, and X log files filling up with
error messages from the DRI drivers before the reset. Even with
journalling filesystems, that's unacceptable. Passing the info on
to Matrox merely got responses that OpenGL/3D under Linux was not
supported. Passing the info on to the DRI project folks got no
response at all; further queries revealed that the DRI project's
Matrox experts effectively aren't involved in the DRI project
anymore, so now no open source developers are working on the Matrox
drivers. A little bit of time spent in the XF86/X.org/DRI bug
tracking systems will show similar Matrox bugs that don't get any
responses from the developers.
So what to do? I need halfway-decent 3D performance for my work.
Find a new line of work? Or buy a used old GF4 on ebay for $50?
<SNIP>
Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software
one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your
choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people
and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing
their financial security for that freedom.
It seems that RME has morphed into RMS. ;-)
Just because the driver is Open Source doesn't mean it works right. I
purchased an RME HDSP 9652 because it would be 'supported' under Alsa.
What I got was 80% support and a bunch of problems. Unfortunately the
developer, who worked amazingly hard to solve these problems was
unable to do so since he didn't actually have the card, and beyond
that, he didn't have the piece of external hardware I had that caused
the driver to fail.
Be careful what you ask for here. Information necessary to write a
driver is not the same as having a driver that really works. Unless
the developer has access to the hardware, and in the case of certain
sound card interfaces like spdif and ADAT, access to external hardware
that attaches to it, you may find yourself as I do. Owning a great
piece of hardware that only works 80%.
- Mark
3:29 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:02:32 -0800
Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:50:40 -0500, Chris Metzler
<cmetzler(a)speakeasy.net> wrote:
Sorry, just to clarify: Frank, to whom I replied, referred to RMS'
stand for free software, hence my reference to RMS. I wasn't confusing
RMS with RME, hehe.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software
one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your
choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people
and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing
their financial security for that freedom.
It seems that RME has morphed into RMS. ;-)
4:02 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Metzler wrote:
Passing the info on to the DRI project folks got no
response at all; further queries revealed that the DRI project's
Matrox experts effectively aren't involved in the DRI project
anymore, so now no open source developers are working on the Matrox
drivers. A little bit of time spent in the XF86/X.org/DRI bug
tracking systems will show similar Matrox bugs that don't get any
responses from the developers.
According to the DRI folks, the issue here is that 3D drivers are
_hard_, and there are just not enough open source developers who have
the skills to fix these kinds of things. For example there are 3 or 4
3D chipsets for which we have docs but no driver.
So it's not quite as simple as "release some docs and the community will
write a driver".
Lee
4:34 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:02:33 -0500, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Metzler
wrote:
Clearly I know not of what I speak of here, but is there any
possibility of an ndiswrapper sort of program here? Would it be
possible somehow to wrap Windows audio hardware drivers in an
alsawrapper program so that I could run Windows 1394 drivers under
Alsa?
- Mark
Passing the info on to the DRI project folks got
no
response at all; further queries revealed that the DRI project's
Matrox experts effectively aren't involved in the DRI project
anymore, so now no open source developers are working on the Matrox
drivers. A little bit of time spent in the XF86/X.org/DRI bug
tracking systems will show similar Matrox bugs that don't get any
responses from the developers.
According to the DRI folks, the issue here is that 3D drivers are
_hard_, and there are just not enough open source developers who have
the skills to fix these kinds of things. For example there are 3 or 4
3D chipsets for which we have docs but no driver.
So it's not quite as simple as "release some docs and the community will
write a driver".
5:29 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:02:33 -0500
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Metzler wrote:
No doubt; and I hope my post didn't suggest otherwise. I was merely
trying to make the point that in some cases: 1) free software/open source
solutions have fallen short of meeting some people's needs (and that's
not a criticism of anyone, believe me; it's just a statement of reality);
2) for those people, it can come down to using proprietary software to
accomplish what they need to, or not accomplishing what they need to at
all.
Put another way, opting for closed source drivers does *not* mean that
one doesn't care at all about the importance of free (as in speech)
software. It doesn't even necessarily mean that one thinks closed source
drivers are OK. One can think that proprietary software is bad, but not
paying one's bills is worse.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Passing the info on to the DRI project folks got
no
response at all; further queries revealed that the DRI project's
Matrox experts effectively aren't involved in the DRI project
anymore, so now no open source developers are working on the Matrox
drivers. A little bit of time spent in the XF86/X.org/DRI bug
tracking systems will show similar Matrox bugs that don't get any
responses from the developers.
According to the DRI folks, the issue here is that 3D drivers are
_hard_, and there are just not enough open source developers who have
the skills to fix these kinds of things. For example there are 3 or 4
3D chipsets for which we have docs but no driver.
So it's not quite as simple as "release some docs and the community will
write a driver".
3:37 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 18:12 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
And who the heck cares, that you
cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source
drivers, by any manufacturer?
Sure you can. The VIA unichrome cards have open 3D drivers. But, of
course, it's not the best 3D hardware on the market.
From the vendor's perspective if getting your
device supported under
linux means you _need_ to release an open source driver, you
will find
that the best hardware is disproportionately unsupported. Nvidia has a
lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source
driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help
you.
Lee
5:09 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo,
Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA
when they
release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't
understand why, I can't help you.
I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict:
I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual
Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav,
Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called
Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their*
property anymore but free to use for a whole community.
As we have "Behringer" as a subject currently: "Behringer" is a
problem for "Mackie", but we here invite people into our house to
become "Behringers", and to become a "Behringer" is a good thing
here.
Ardour is trying to become a Behringer for Digidesign.
Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long
as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.) IP however and
free software don't match very well together. Free software is at
least a decade older than the term Intellectual Property (read the
Wired-CD text to learn more), which was only coined as a term to fight
free property, to fight sharing, to fight Behringers, etc.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
5:41 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 22:09 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
I think you are confusing the distinction between software and hardware.
I agree that software should be free. The issue here is what the
software reveals about the hardware.
This is the reason Linus allows binary Linux drivers, but not, say, a
binary I/O scheduler.
Lee
Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than
VIA when they
release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't
understand why, I can't help you.
I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict:
I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual
Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav,
Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called
Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their*
property anymore but free to use for a whole community.
6:31 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:09:17 +0100, Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long
as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.)
This is so patently untrue I cannot imagine how you got here.
GPL == GP License
Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't create
it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own
something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own
it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license
specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the
license.
- Mark
8:02 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
This is so patently untrue I cannot imagine how you
got here.
steady on! :-)
GPL == GP License
Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't
create
it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own
something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own
it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license
specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the
license.
copyright and hence the GPL is not concerned with ownership,
it only deals with the right to copy.
ownership of the copyrighted "expression of an idea" is in practice
not important at all. I have heard people claim that its public domain,
though i havnt been able to confirm that. Legal systems dont concern
themselves much with the idea of ownership of an idea or its expression as
it doesnt really make sense - eg if you give me a copy of your latest
mix, in some ways i own it as much as you (although i cant do much with
it), as ownership is highly related to possession. Copyright is a
totally unnatural utilitarian legal device designed to encourage the
nurturing of our culture.
i dont however know how 'ownership' is affected by the Moral Rights
provisions in the GATT TRIPS agreement.
so what was the point of me saying this? none really but i thought
Franks mail was quite spot on:-)
cheers
--
Tim Orford
29 Nov
29 Nov
7:49 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:58:24 +0100
Tim Orford <tim(a)orford.org> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Mark Knecht
wrote:
This is the Darl McBride/SCO argument against the GPL. It makes about
as much sense as the "Wookie defense" on South Park - "If Chewbacca
lives on Endor, you must acquit!"
GPL == GP License
Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't
create
it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own
something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own
it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license
specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the
license.
copyright and hence the GPL is not concerned with ownership,
it only deals with the right to copy.
ownership of the copyrighted "expression of an idea" is in practice
not important at all. I have heard people claim that its public domain,
though i havnt been able to confirm that. Copyright is a
totally unnatural utilitarian legal device designed to encourage the
nurturing of our culture.
This was how it was conceived of. The idea is being perverted through
software patents here in the US to try and lock OSS out of the game,
legitimizing large, proprietary software companies. Weasels. If they
could, they'd patent the "for" loop and sue everyone writing a program
with such a control structure, and our patent office would blindly hand
them the patent.
Hardware, on the other hand, has already had precedents set, and the
rules allowing reverse engineering are pretty well defined, which is
what allows Behringer to sell an exact copy of someone else's audio
cable tester.
I think if RME believes releasing the data on their Firewire audio
poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a point.
While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to respect when companies like
NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad that
they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze, or for
Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for example, is as good
for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do all bugs get fixed?
Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects, either.
If RME chooses not to do Linux support for their Firewire devices, then
about all we can do is write them and tell them we won't be buying those
devices.
On the other hand, I think it's important to let companies know when we
do purchase their goods because of Linux support, so that they will continue
to do so, open source or not.
Just my $0.02.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
9:56 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] Copyrights [was: Re: Behringer [was: Re: RME is no more]]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:49:21AM -0500, Joe Hartley wrote:
hi!
sorry I didnt quite follow that. Would you mind elaborating?
(guess i need to catch up on some more Southpark:-))
just to be clear, i'm making an esoteric distinction between the
ownership of a copyright (which can be bought and sold), and the
ownership of the "expression of an idea" itself.
cheers
--
Tim Orford
copyright and
hence the GPL is not concerned with ownership,
it only deals with the right to copy.
ownership of the copyrighted "expression of an idea" is in practice
not important at all. I have heard people claim that its public domain,
though i havnt been able to confirm that.
This is the Darl McBride/SCO argument against the GPL. It makes about
as much sense as the "Wookie defense" on South Park - "If Chewbacca
lives on Endor, you must acquit!" 
11:43 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] Copyrights [was: Re: Behringer [was: Re: RME is no more]]
Tim Orford wrote:
just to be clear, i'm making an esoteric
distinction between the
ownership of a copyright (which can be bought and sold), and the
ownership of the "expression of an idea" itself.
I'm usually just a lurker, but I'm intrigued / interested enough to give
this a try, from two aspects:
First of all, I think trying to make a(n esoteric) distinction between
copyright and the expression of an idea is the wrong thing to try -- I
think maybe you intended to make a distinction between something that is
copyrighted (which is an expression of an idea) and an idea.
The expression of an idea can be copyrighted, the idea cannot.
(However, the idea might be subject to patenting.)
If you are trying to distinguish between a specific expression of an
idea and the general right to express the same idea, the specific
expression can be covered by copyright, but the general right to express
the same idea in different words (for example) is not restricted by
copyright.
IANAL, and this represents my best understanding.
regards,
Randy Kramer
2:13 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] Copyrights [was: Re: Behringer [was: Re: RME is no more]]
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:19:19PM -0500, Ruth A. Kramer wrote:
IANAL, and this represents my best understanding.
yes i completely agree.
but i'm thinking that actually the distinction may not
be that esoteric after all, and is maybe why Frank originally
mentioned this issue in passing. The distinction emphasises:
a) that certain copyright holders dont have as much as they
claim (they own nothing but some rights), and
b) the genius of the GPL, in that it revolutionises production
and distribution while still staying true to the intent of
the law.
regards
--
Tim Orford
12:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] Copyrights [was: Re: Behringer [was: Re: RME is no more]]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:52:05 +0100
Tim Orford <tim(a)orford.org> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:49:21AM -0500, Joe Hartley
wrote:
hi!
sorry I didnt quite follow that. Would you mind elaborating?
(guess i need to catch up on some more Southpark:-))
Sure :) Chef hears a song that Cartman can't get out his head and Chef
says that he wrote that song over twenty years ago. When Chef and the
boys visit the record company, the record company says they are going
to sue him. Capitalist Records hires Johnny Cochran, who uses the
Chewbacca defense, the same defense that he used in the Simpson trial.
"Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on
the planet Endor. Now think about that; that does not make sense. Why
would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor with a
bunch of two foot tall ewoks? That does not make sense! But more
importantly, you have to ask yourself, what does that have to do with
this case?' Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with
this case. It does not make sense!"
In a similarly surrealistic move, Darl McBride wrote a letter which
was sent to all the members of the US congress, saying that the GPL
is unconstitutional because it deprives software companies from the
ability to make a profit from developing software. I kid you not,
check out Darl's rant yourself: http://www.sco.com/copyright/
copyright
and hence the GPL is not concerned with ownership,
it only deals with the right to copy.
ownership of the copyrighted "expression of an idea" is in practice
not important at all. I have heard people claim that its public domain,
though i havnt been able to confirm that.
This is the Darl McBride/SCO argument against the GPL. It makes about
as much sense as the "Wookie defense" on South Park - "If Chewbacca
lives on Endor, you must acquit!" just to be clear, i'm making an esoteric
distinction between the
ownership of a copyright (which can be bought and sold), and the
ownership of the "expression of an idea" itself.
Hmmm, a very fine hair to split. The "expression of an idea" can be
copyrighted, and if it is, then they become one and the same. The
idea itself is theoretically not copyrightable, but is apparently
patentable at this point in time.
One thing that Darl missed is that the GPL is a license, and while is
often referred to as a "copyleft," it is called that in a sort of
tongue-in-cheek manner, simply implying that licensing under the GPL
retains the owner's rights, but does not do so in a way that restricts
its use in the way copyrights are usually enforced by the owners.
Darl forgot or ignored the facts that
1) The work can still be copyrighted and be released under the GPL
2) The work can be released under multiple licenses by the owner
3) No one is ever forced to use work released under the GPL
He's just mad that he thought he'd make a bundle selling GPL'ed software
for OpenServer and found that it doesn't really work like he'd hoped.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
2:44 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] Copyrights [was: Re: Behringer [was: Re: RME is no more]]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:14:34AM -0500, Joe Hartley wrote:
they are certainly very close, but it does seem to me that strictly
speaking they are not identical. I'm not qualified to say for sure tho.
and perhaps it acts as a behaviour modifier to the copyright owner if
they perceive that 'their' idea (or its expression), belongs to
mankind and that they are merely given temporary stewardship of it?
[ok, enough bullshit from me i think!]
best regards
--
Tim Orford
check out Darl's rant yourself:
http://www.sco.com/copyright/
thanks for the explanation:-)
I must admit that i havnt been following SCO or Groklaw for the same
reason i dont play Neverwinter Nights. Some things are just *too*
entertaining!
just to be
clear, i'm making an esoteric distinction between the
ownership of a copyright (which can be bought and sold), and the
ownership of the "expression of an idea" itself.
Hmmm, a very fine hair to split. The "expression of an idea" can be
copyrighted, and if it is, then they become one and the same.
[...] 
11:58 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
I think if RME believes releasing the data on their
Firewire audio
poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a point.
Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to respect
when companies like
NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad that
they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze, or for
Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for example, is as good
for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do all bugs get fixed?
Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects, either.
I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
violates *their* freedom. I value libre software for being minimally
coercive to both authors and users.
--
joq
2:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to use
the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice.
I think if RME believes releasing the data on
their Firewire audio
poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a point.
Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to
respect when companies like
NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad that
they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze, or for
Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for example, is as good
for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do all bugs get fixed?
Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects, either.
I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
violates *their* freedom. I value libre software for being minimally
coercive to both authors and users.
Basically i think that people here are just *too* polite to stand up and
thrash the companies for being careless. Because it's how it is.
Marek
4:27 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin wrote:
I have a question. Since they already have a Mac OSX driver for the
Firewire 800, why can't they just port it to Linux? It shouldn't be that
hard. Am I wrong about this? Of course it would be closed source but at
least people would have the option of using that interface on Linux. If
I'm right about it not being that hard to port the driver, wouldn't that
indicate that there is another reason for not providing Linux support
for that interface?
Rick B
Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to use
the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice.
I think if RME believes releasing the data on
their Firewire audio
poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a point.
Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to respect
when companies like
NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad that
they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze, or for
Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for example, is as good
for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do all bugs get fixed?
Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects, either.
I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
violates *their* freedom.
I value libre software for being minimally
coercive to both authors and users.
Basically i think that people here are just *too* polite to stand up and
thrash the companies for being careless. Because it's how it is.
Marek
4:41 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:29:59 -0500, Rick B <zajelo3(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
I have a question. Since they already have a Mac OSX
driver for the
Firewire 800, why can't they just port it to Linux? It shouldn't be that
hard. Am I wrong about this? Of course it would be closed source but at
least people would have the option of using that interface on Linux. If
I'm right about it not being that hard to port the driver, wouldn't that
indicate that there is another reason for not providing Linux support
for that interface?
Rick B
Not hard doesn't mean not expensive. (In the short term) Once they
release it they have to supoprt it. This means (presumably) any
distro, any kernel, etc., and it a whole can of worms.
Maybe they could do something like NVidia does where most of the
driver is binary but a little piece gets recompiled. That helps, if
they know how to do it.
Of course, in the long term saving money now certainly costs them
money in the future since Marek, et all, won't buy from them.
This all presumes that they do not have a technical reason to say that
this devices won't work under Linux. For instance, in another thread,
I raised the question about the stability of the Linux 1394 drivers
themselves. I know for a fact that the Linux 1394 drivers do not
support all the 1394 peripherals I can run under Windows. About 50% of
the peripherals I've tried under Linux just don't work. They aren't
recognized by the stack at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this
whole discussion assumes the 1394 drivers do work. Maybe RME tried,
found they didn't work with their device, and then just shelved it for
a while.
This is all just ramblings from someone looking for a stiff drink...
- Mark
4:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:16, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Not really, it's how you see it.
If by "careless" you mean they don't care about the linux user base for
this particular product you are right.
So?
"Trashing the company" (ie: the equivalent of throwing a tantrum when
you are a little kid to get what you want) will not help, it will just
make us linux users look like little kids throwing a tantrum[*], IMHO.
-- Fernando
[*] sometimes doing that will get you what you want if your parents get
so fed up that giving up is easier than teaching you to grow up. Usually
you will be taught that that is not the proper way to ask for something
and you will _not_ get what you want. Not all of us learn that lesson as
we grow up, of course.
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong, the "freedom" of users is not affected by RME's
decision to not release information. Users have the freedom to chose
what they buy. They are not forced to buy a particular card. If they buy
it and they did not know it was not supported under linux (either
because they did not do the required homework before buying, or they did
the homework and still the card does not work) they should return it and
buy something else.
If the user wants __that__ card and nothing else will do, then politely
(yes, being polite will get you further than being rude) ask the vendor
to support it. If the vendor still decides to not support it then buy
something else and tell the vendor about your decision. If enough people
do that the vendor may reconsider the decision. Or not.
Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to use
the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice. I think
if RME believes releasing the data on their Firewire audio
poses a threat to their
competitive edge, they probably have a point. While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to
respect when companies like
NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad that
they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze, or for
Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for example, is as good
for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do all bugs get fixed?
Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects, either.
I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
violates *their* freedom. I value libre
software for being minimally
coercive to both authors and users.
Basically i think that people here are just *too* polite to stand up and
thrash the companies for being careless. Because it's how it is. 
5:27 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Monday 29 November 2004 15:57, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
"Trashing the company" (ie: the equivalent
of throwing a
tantrum when you are a little kid to get what you want) will
not help, it will just make us linux users look like little
kids throwing a tantrum[*], IMHO.
I would point out that while it wasn't limited to Linux users,
nerds trashing the Divx company and Circuit City at every
opportunity while pushing alternatives were regarded as
instrumental in the demise of the Divx product (pay-per-view
DVD's, not the popular video codec.)
Rob
5:56 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:57, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:16, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What if there's nothing else you can buy? Which very much seems to be
the situation with linux audio (expect egosys) in the next 2 years or so
when all already supported cards will be discontinued. The future seems
to be firewire. Presonus, mackie, apogee, maudio, echo, TC, edirol,
digidesign, motu, terratec, metric halo, egosys, tascam,
......................... ;)
Now let's *guess* who of those companies will provide specs. ;)
Seems like not even M-Audio will, according to Pieters information. RME,
long time specs provider, said clear NO.
Guys, please, don't be naive(no offense intended of course), we're
pretty much f*cked if we don't do somehting about it. Let's not act like
a sleeping beauty dreaming of hw manufacturer's openness "one day".
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin
wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong, the "freedom" of users is not affected by RME's
decision to not release information. Users have the freedom to chose
what they buy. They are not forced to buy a particular card. If they buy
it and they did not know it was not supported under linux (either
because they did not do the required homework before buying, or they did
the homework and still the card does not work) they should return it and
buy something else. Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to use
the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice. > I think if RME believes releasing the data
on their Firewire audio
poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a point.
Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to
respect when companies like
NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad that
they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze, or for
Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for example, is as good
for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do all bugs get fixed?
Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects, either.
I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
violates *their* freedom.
If the user wants __that__ card and nothing else will do, then politely
(yes, being polite will get you further than being rude)
The worst nightmare for every company is unsatisfied customer, the more
the better chance to achieve *something*.
ask the vendor
to support it.
I think i asked politely the first time. I don't think i got a polite
answer(which isn't necessarily YES in this case ;).
If the vendor still decides to not support it then
buy
something else and tell the vendor about your decision.
"Trashing the company" (ie: the equivalent of throwing a tantrum when
you are a little kid to get what you want) will not help, it will just
make us linux users look like little kids throwing a tantrum[*], IMHO.
No i absolutely don't think so. I don't think i ever will. Treating
companies kindly when they don't offer what they already should is just
boosting their egos so that they can show you their finger next time you
need something. It happens always.
In better cases, they just don't do anything unless they see a few
hundred people waving their hands saying 'HELLO', which is
understandable. In any case it's *important* for us to do so.
Marek
30 Nov
30 Nov
1:20 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Last Monday 29 November 2004 23:55, Marek Peteraj was like:
Rudeness puts people on the defensive and makes them close ranks. It's a
natural response.
In your
opinion
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:57, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:16, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > > Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
> > > > > I think if RME believes releasing the data on their Firewire
> > > > > audio
> > > >
> > > > poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a
> > > > point.
> > >
> > > Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
> > >
> > > > While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to respect when companies
like
> > > > NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad
> > > > that they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze,
> > > > or for Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for
> > > > example, is as good for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do
> > > > all bugs get fixed? Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects,
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
> > > silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
> > > violates *their* freedom.
> >
> > Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to
> > use the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong, the "freedom" of users is not affected by
RME's
> decision to not release information. Users have the freedom to chose
> what they buy. They are not forced to buy a particular card. If they buy
> it and they did not know it was not supported under linux (either
> because they did not do the required homework before buying, or they did
> the homework and still the card does not work) they should return it and
> buy something else.
Exactly, consumer choice here is not to continue being their customer. Very
frustrating, but that's the choice we get. A bit like not voting Republican
next time, I find it more interesting to think closer to apples and oranges
on this one.
I've been a vegetarian most of my adult life, so I'll compare proprietary
software to meat for the purposes of this analogy. If anyone wants to flame
me for this, I'll have mine chargrilled. Food is an interesting analogy as
for years manufacturers have had to print their specs (i.e. ingredients) on
the wrapper, not the whole recipe, just the ingredients and I think there may
be things that it's legal to leave out in certain circumstances. As a
carrot-cruncher, it's up to me to read the ingredients and if they're not
available, as is the case with many non-food products, don't buy it. I love
hobnobs, but they contain animal fats. How far am I going to get slagging off
the manufacturer for perpetuating murder? I'm not, they simply wouldn't
understand the argument, even if some of their products are vegetarian.
Over twenty years this basic policy, started by a small bunch of nutters, has
resulted in much tighter legislation about what food companies have to
disclose about their products, meat-free products can now be found in
high-street shops instead of just specialist stores and people now accept
that being vegetarian is a healthy thing (more or less). In all this time, I
haven't once insisted that you stop eating meat or send letters to food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian principles, much as I
think that would be a good idea. I'm quite happy munching through my bar of
Green&Black's chocolate, they don't release their recipe either, so I
can't
make my own or send it to you; are they violating my consumer rights?
They're giving me yet another reason not to buy Hershey's. Mmm consumer
choice, tastes good.
What if there's nothing else you can buy? Which
very much seems to be
the situation with linux audio (expect egosys) in the next 2 years or so
when all already supported cards will be discontinued. The future seems
to be firewire. Presonus, mackie, apogee, maudio, echo, TC, edirol,
digidesign, motu, terratec, metric halo, egosys, tascam,
......................... ;)
Give up chocolate.
On the hardware front, personally I just wish they'd give them away free,
specs and all, then I could afford one too. And in approximately ten years,
they will.
Now let's *guess* who of those companies will
provide specs. ;)
Seems like not even M-Audio will, according to Pieters information. RME,
long time specs provider, said clear NO.
Guys, please, don't be naive(no offense intended of course), we're
pretty much f*cked if we don't do somehting about it. Let's not act like
a sleeping beauty dreaming of hw manufacturer's openness "one day".
That's another way of saying 'be very afraid'. No thanks, it hasn't worked
so
far. I think it's naive to attack any company from a position of
powerlessness and think it will change anything. We need to build on our
successes, we need allies, we need good PR and we need to encourage
manufacturers to be open with us. You can harrass companies when they break
the law or some guidelines that they signed up to in the first place.
If the user
wants __that__ card and nothing else will do, then politely
(yes, being polite will get you further than being rude)
The worst nightmare for every company is unsatisfied customer, the more
the better chance to achieve *something*. ask the
vendor
to support it.
I think i asked politely the first time. I don't think i got a polite
answer(which isn't necessarily YES in this case ;).
If the vendor still decides to not support it
then buy
something else and tell the vendor about your decision.
"Trashing the company" (ie: the equivalent of throwing a tantrum when
you are a little kid to get what you want) will not help, it will just
make us linux users look like little kids throwing a tantrum[*], IMHO.
No i absolutely don't think so. I don't think i ever will. Treating
companies kindly when they don't offer what they already should is just
boosting their egos so that they can show you their finger next time you
need something. It happens always.
To you? always? Hmm.
In better cases, they just don't do anything
unless they see a few
hundred people waving their hands saying 'HELLO', which is
understandable. In any case it's *important* for us to do so.
Just don't forget that we're dealing with human beings, presumably they love
their children too. Open Source is an option that I'd like all hardware
manufacturers to take, but if they don't, I'll manage. I've managed without
owning a car most of my life. My consumer choice. Poor me. ;-)
Boycotting products means you get to wear the hair shirt and they get to swan
around in a Rolls Royce. Yeah it's unfair, so what? You want money off rich
people, you shine their shoes.
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
2:14 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
tim hall wrote:
Last Monday 29 November 2004 23:55, Marek Peteraj was
like:
Rudeness puts people on the defensive and makes them close ranks. It's a
natural response.
In your opinion
Here Here....and over
here........................................................and here! :)
I have watched this thread mutate into several shades of something or
other and I don't really know why...but in summary it goes like this me
thinx....
Money talks...bull$hit walks.! They DID go into bizness to make
money...THEY did take all the associated risk to do as they damn well
please...and so long as they can still sell enough of their product(s),
they will get to do same for a long time. They, whomever "they" be, will
go where the numbers take them. If we want their graces, WE must show
them how many $$$$ are in it for them. That is ALL that matters to
them....and so it should! That is the only reason anyone would take on
such financial risk! BIG BUX!! Gotta love Capitolizm eh?? I love the
open source community; the yin of the $$$ yang! But don't expect that
everyone else should. It flys in the face of big soundcard and big
production. I hope that some good hearted soul in these hardware outfits
take pity upon the open source communities and throw us a bone...but I
ain't going to place my bets on that hand...it's just not where the odds
are.
R~
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:57, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:16, Marek Peteraj wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I think if RME believes releasing the data on their Firewire
>>>>>audio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a
>>>>point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to respect when companies like
>>>>NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad
>>>>that they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze,
>>>>or for Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for
>>>>example, is as good for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do
>>>>all bugs get fixed? Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects,
>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
>>>silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
>>>violates *their* freedom.
>>>
>>>
>>Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to
>>use the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice.
>>
>>
>Sorry but you are wrong, the "freedom" of users is not affected by
RME's
>decision to not release information. Users have the freedom to chose
>what they buy. They are not forced to buy a particular card. If they buy
>it and they did not know it was not supported under linux (either
>because they did not do the required homework before buying, or they did
>the homework and still the card does not work) they should return it and
>buy something else.
>
>
Exactly, consumer choice here is not to continue being their customer. Very
frustrating, but that's the choice we get. A bit like not voting Republican
next time, I find it more interesting to think closer to apples and oranges
on this one.
I've been a vegetarian most of my adult life, so I'll compare proprietary
software to meat for the purposes of this analogy. If anyone wants to flame
me for this, I'll have mine chargrilled. Food is an interesting analogy as
for years manufacturers have had to print their specs (i.e. ingredients) on
the wrapper, not the whole recipe, just the ingredients and I think there may
be things that it's legal to leave out in certain circumstances. As a
carrot-cruncher, it's up to me to read the ingredients and if they're not
available, as is the case with many non-food products, don't buy it. I love
hobnobs, but they contain animal fats. How far am I going to get slagging off
the manufacturer for perpetuating murder? I'm not, they simply wouldn't
understand the argument, even if some of their products are vegetarian.
Over twenty years this basic policy, started by a small bunch of nutters, has
resulted in much tighter legislation about what food companies have to
disclose about their products, meat-free products can now be found in
high-street shops instead of just specialist stores and people now accept
that being vegetarian is a healthy thing (more or less). In all this time, I
haven't once insisted that you stop eating meat or send letters to food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian principles, much as I
think that would be a good idea. I'm quite happy munching through my bar of
Green&Black's chocolate, they don't release their recipe either, so I
can't
make my own or send it to you; are they violating my consumer rights?
They're giving me yet another reason not to buy Hershey's. Mmm consumer
choice, tastes good.
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Which very much seems to be
the situation with linux audio (expect egosys) in the next 2 years or so
when all already supported cards will be discontinued. The future seems
to be firewire. Presonus, mackie, apogee, maudio, echo, TC, edirol,
digidesign, motu, terratec, metric halo, egosys, tascam,
......................... ;)
Give up chocolate.
On the hardware front, personally I just wish they'd give them away free,
specs and all, then I could afford one too. And in approximately ten years,
they will.
Now let's *guess* who of those companies will
provide specs. ;)
Seems like not even M-Audio will, according to Pieters information. RME,
long time specs provider, said clear NO.
Guys, please, don't be naive(no offense intended of course), we're
pretty much f*cked if we don't do somehting about it. Let's not act like
a sleeping beauty dreaming of hw manufacturer's openness "one day".
That's another way of saying 'be very afraid'. No thanks, it hasn't worked
so
far. I think it's naive to attack any company from a position of
powerlessness and think it will change anything. We need to build on our
successes, we need allies, we need good PR and we need to encourage
manufacturers to be open with us. You can harrass companies when they break
the law or some guidelines that they signed up to in the first place.
If the
user wants __that__ card and nothing else will do, then politely
(yes, being polite will get you further than being rude)
The worst nightmare for every company is unsatisfied customer, the more
the better chance to achieve *something*.
ask the
vendor
to support it.
I think i asked politely the first time. I don't think i got a polite
answer(which isn't necessarily YES in this case ;).
If the vendor still decides to not support it
then buy
something else and tell the vendor about your decision.
"Trashing the company" (ie: the equivalent of throwing a tantrum when
you are a little kid to get what you want) will not help, it will just
make us linux users look like little kids throwing a tantrum[*], IMHO.
No i absolutely don't think so. I don't think i ever will. Treating
companies kindly when they don't offer what they already should
is just
boosting their egos so that they can show you their finger next time you
need something. It happens always.
To you? always? Hmm.
In better cases, they just don't do anything
unless they see a few
hundred people waving their hands saying 'HELLO', which is
understandable. In any case it's *important* for us to do so.
Just don't forget that we're dealing with human beings, presumably they love
their children too. Open Source is an option that I'd like all hardware
manufacturers to take, but if they don't, I'll manage. I've managed without
owning a car most of my life. My consumer choice. Poor me. ;-)
Boycotting products means you get to wear the hair shirt and they get to swan
around in a Rolls Royce. Yeah it's unfair, so what? You want money off rich
people, you shine their shoes.
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
6:22 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 06:20, tim hall wrote:
Give up linux audio? I really hope i won't be forced to do that.
We are powerless if we think that we are.
I'd be glad to learn it's the opposite. A few exceptions just prove that
rule.
Marek
Last Monday 29 November 2004 23:55, Marek Peteraj was
like:
Me too.
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:57, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:16, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:59, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > > Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> writes:
> > > > > I think if RME believes releasing the data on their Firewire
> > > > > audio
> > > >
> > > > poses a threat to their competitive edge, they probably have a
> > > > point.
> > >
> > > Right or wrong, it is their business and their choice.
> > >
> > > > While I'm a huge fan of OSS, I have to respect when companies
like
> > > > NVidia release binary-only drivers for a device. I'm just glad
> > > > that they do, when so many companies will only release for Windoze,
> > > > or for Windoze and Mac only. I think NVidia's support, for
> > > > example, is as good for Linux as it is for any other platform. Do
> > > > all bugs get fixed? Nope, and they don't in 99% of OSS projects,
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > I believe in free speech, and this includes the right to remain
> > > silent. Insisting that RME release code when they would rather not
> > > violates *their* freedom.
> >
> > Jack, i think it rather violates the freedom of their *customers* to
> > use the product they've purchased with the OS of their choice.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong, the "freedom" of users is not affected by
RME's
> decision to not release information. Users have the freedom to chose
> what they buy. They are not forced to buy a particular card. If they buy
> it and they did not know it was not supported under linux (either
> because they did not do the required homework before buying, or they did
> the homework and still the card does not work) they should return it and
> buy something else.
Exactly, consumer choice here is not to continue being their customer. Very
frustrating, but that's the choice we get. A bit like not voting Republican
next time, I find it more interesting to think closer to apples and oranges
on this one.
I've been a vegetarian most of my adult life, so I'll compare proprietary
software to meat for the purposes of this analogy. If anyone wants to flame
me for this, I'll have mine chargrilled. Food is an interesting analogy as
for years manufacturers have had to print their specs (i.e. ingredients) on
the wrapper, not the whole recipe, just the ingredients
Not the ALSA driver, just the specs. To me.
Over twenty years this basic policy, started by a
small bunch of nutters, has
resulted in much tighter legislation about what food companies have to
disclose about their products, meat-free products can now be found in
high-street shops instead of just specialist stores and people now accept
that being vegetarian is a healthy thing (more or less). In all this time, I
haven't once insisted that you stop eating meat or send letters to food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian principles, much as I
think that would be a good idea.
Lots of people do that. I've seen many food products having a 'suitable
for vegetarians' sticker on them. Besides, if it's a market that, even
though seems to be small, is very likely to grow, i'd definitely invest.
It's a continuous process of looking for new business opportunities.
But let's look at it from the card manufacturers perspective. He wasn't
involved in the community for several years, doesn't know its evolution,
nuances etc. He takes a look here, sees a few people saying "we're just
10 people here, guys let's give up anyway, it's not worth it".
Consequences are worse because there's little action going on.
Perhaps i'd be nice to start a petition of all rme and maudio users. But
we'd need to widely promote such activity so that we can reach almost
every rme or maudio / linux audiop user in the world.
I'm quite happy munching through my bar of
Green&Black's chocolate, they don't release their recipe
ALSA driver.
either, so I can't
make my own or send it to you; are they violating my consumer rights?
They're giving me yet another reason
Specs.
not to buy Hershey's.
Digidesign.
Mmm consumer
choice, tastes good.
Yeah. :)
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Which very much seems to be
the situation with linux audio (expect egosys) in the next 2 years or so
when all already supported cards will be discontinued. The future seems
to be firewire. Presonus, mackie, apogee, maudio, echo, TC, edirol,
digidesign, motu, terratec, metric halo, egosys, tascam,
......................... ;)
Give up chocolate.
On the hardware front, personally I just wish they'd give them away free,
specs and all, then I could afford one too. And in approximately ten years,
they will.
The situation is different. They did, the can do that now.
Now let's *guess* who of those companies will
provide specs. ;)
Seems like not even M-Audio will, according to Pieters information. RME,
long time specs provider, said clear NO.
Guys, please, don't be naive(no offense intended of course), we're
pretty much f*cked if we don't do somehting about it. Let's not act like
a sleeping beauty dreaming of hw manufacturer's openness "one day".
That's another way of saying 'be very afraid'. No thanks, it hasn't
worked so
far. I think it's naive to attack any company from a position of
powerlessness and think it will change anything. We need to build on our
successes, we need allies, we need good PR and we need to encourage
manufacturers to be open with us. You can harrass companies when they break
the law or some guidelines that they signed up to in the first place.
Rudeness puts people on the defensive and makes them close ranks. It's a
natural response.
Never if it comes to corporations.
They either:
1. ignore you if their position is strong enough(sometimes even if they
have no such position, but there are successful and unsuccessful
companies)
2. accept your requirements
If the
user wants __that__ card and nothing else will do, then politely
(yes, being polite will get you further than being rude)
The worst nightmare for every company is unsatisfied customer, the more
the better chance to achieve *something*. is just
boosting their egos so that they can show you their finger next time you
need something. It happens always.
To you? always? Hmm.
7:31 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Over twenty years this basic policy, started by a
small bunch of nutters, has
resulted in much tighter legislation about what food companies have to
disclose about their products, meat-free products can now be found in
high-street shops instead of just specialist stores and people now accept
that being vegetarian is a healthy thing (more or less). In all this time, I
haven't once insisted that you stop eating meat or send letters to food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian principles, much as I
think that would be a good idea.
Lots of people do that. I've seen many food products having a 'suitable
for vegetarians' sticker on them.
11:56 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 08:30, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Lots of people stop eating meat or send letters to
food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian
principles. As a result, there are many food products having a
'suitable for vegetarians' sticker on them.The fight over
revealing ingredients was aslo one such fight.
Unfortunately, that's a poor analogy as manufacturers only list
ingredients because they're required to do so by law. Much as
it'd tickle me to see proprietary software made illegal, I think
that would be a very bad idea.
However, I do think that pro audio is a small enough market
(compared to other computer hardware, or for that matter food ;)
) that keeping after the companies with POLITE letters
explaining that you'd love to (use|continue to use) their
products but you can't because they don't work with your OS will
eventually cause one of them to release specs and/or a Linux
driver.
Whatever happened to Echo anyway? I still have the announcement
from last year posted to this very list saying they'd shared
their specs with the ALSA guys or something to that effect. A
studio-owning friend of mine swears by their stuff and I'd
recommend it to other people too if I knew there were decent
drivers.
Rob
1 Dec
1 Dec
10:34 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] The 99th Monkey Nut
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 15:51, Rob was like:
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 08:30, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
ingredients = specs
recipe = code
I think it's quite a good analogy actually. Food and Medicine are similar to
software in that they suffer from Patent Abuse. The law on ingredient
disclosure has tightened up due to pressure from vegetarians/vegans/people on
other restricted diets. Before then it was only vegetarian / wholefood
producers that bothered to list everything. How many of you non-veggies have
ever read the ingredients list on your toilet cleaner? I think making the
release of a certain level of specification a legal requirement , enough for
compatibility purposes, would be cool. I know, dream on ...
I realise the argument goes nowhere with anyone who has never bothered with
ingredients lists or restricted diets. The difference is that food & medicine
are a necessity & human right and therefore you can justify a more aggressive
approach. It can yield results, especially in conjunction with a few 'good
cops'. It still won't make you any friends. ;-]
The point that I'm really trying to make is that things do change. It's been a
long haul as far as vegetarianism is concerned, but it all started with a
small bunch of nutters with no more leverage over food producers than we have
over hardware manufacturers. At no point have we tried to make eating meat
illegal, although we do seem to have banned hunting for sport in this country
and frankly that's a bill I never thought would get through the House of
Lords. It only takes a relatively small group of dedicated and vocal
practitioners to change the law. It's known as The 100th Monkey effect.
Anyway, I'm using a big contentious issue as an analogy and it probably won't
bear much deeper discussion. FTR: Eat what you like, I know I do. :-)
cheers
tim hall is powered by organic fair-trade coffee, rice and vegetables.
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
Lots of people stop eating meat or send letters
to food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian
principles. As a result, there are many food products having a
'suitable for vegetarians' sticker on them.The fight over
revealing ingredients was aslo one such fight.
Unfortunately, that's a poor analogy as manufacturers only list
ingredients because they're required to do so by law. Much as
it'd tickle me to see proprietary software made illegal, I think
that would be a very bad idea.
12:20 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] The 99th Monkey Nut
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:34 +0000, tim hall wrote:
The difference is that food & medicine
are a necessity & human right
A depressingly large number of people in the States don't agree with
this statement. One of them will be running the country for the next 4
years. You gotta love democracy :-P
Lee
1:40 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [OT] The 99th Monkey Nut
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:34 +0000, tim hall wrote:
As Winston Churchill said: it's the worst imaginable form of
government, except for all the others.
--
joq
The difference is that food & medicine are a
necessity & human
right
A depressingly large number of people in the States don't agree with
this statement. One of them will be running the country for the next 4
years. You gotta love democracy :-P
30 Nov
30 Nov
11:59 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:58 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
Not me. Where's my burger...
And why would anyone do this? What do they gain? 1 (potentially) happy
customer? And a risk that you'll give the info away and whatever their
secret is will be out of the bag.
There's no value for them in doing this. If they don't want the
ingredients for their secret sauce known by other burger makers then
you cannot release the driver as Open Source, can you? It only helps
you and not the community at large.
And yours had one. It said 'suitable for Windows and Mac operating
system users'. Nothing more.
Give up linux audio? I really hope i won't be forced to do that.
You're not being forced to. You're being forced to find a supported
piece of hardware. Unfortunately there aren't that many hence my and
Lee Revell's earlier threads on doing an Open Source hardware
solution.
(Oh, by the way, if RME is reading this and other similar threads then
they probably don't like us making our own and that would't be helping
you get any specs at all from them. For that I apologize.)
<SNIP>
Wow! It appears that there are very few options in your world.
I'd be glad to learn it's the opposite. A few exceptions just prove that
rule.
We can work together to find them I think...
- Mark
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 06:20, tim hall wrote:
<SNIP>
I've been a vegetarian most of my adult life,
Me too. so I'll compare proprietary
software to meat for the purposes of this analogy. If anyone wants to flame
me for this, I'll have mine chargrilled. Food is an interesting analogy as
for years manufacturers have had to print their specs (i.e. ingredients) on
the wrapper, not the whole recipe, just the ingredients
Not the ALSA driver, just the specs. To me. Over twenty
years this basic policy, started by a small bunch of nutters, has
resulted in much tighter legislation about what food companies have to
disclose about their products, meat-free products can now be found in
high-street shops instead of just specialist stores and people now accept
that being vegetarian is a healthy thing (more or less). In all this time, I
haven't once insisted that you stop eating meat or send letters to food
producers insisting that they comply with vegetarian principles, much as I
think that would be a good idea.
Lots of people do that. I've seen many food products having a 'suitable
for vegetarians' sticker on them. Besides, if it's a market that, even
though seems to be small, is very likely to grow, i'd definitely invest.
It's a continuous process of looking for new business opportunities.
But let's look at it from the card manufacturers perspective. He wasn't
involved in the community for several years, doesn't know its evolution,
nuances etc. He takes a look here, sees a few people saying "we're just
10 people here, guys let's give up anyway, it's not worth it".
Consequences are worse because there's little action going on.
Perhaps i'd be nice to start a petition of all rme and maudio users. But
we'd need to widely promote such activity so that we can reach almost
every rme or maudio / linux audiop user in the world.
Go for it. I'll sign up, depending on what the petition actually says.
I won't take part in threatening RME or any other company. The world
is too small and life is too short. I've been very impressed with RME
so far.
I'm quite happy munching through my bar of
Green&Black's chocolate, they don't release their recipe
ALSA driver.
either, so I can't
make my own or send it to you; are they violating my consumer rights?
They're giving me yet another reason
Specs.
not to buy Hershey's.
Digidesign.
Mmm consumer
choice, tastes good.
Yeah. :)
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Which very much seems to be
the situation with linux audio (expect egosys) in the next 2 years or so
when all already supported cards will be discontinued. The future seems
to be firewire. Presonus, mackie, apogee, maudio, echo, TC, edirol,
digidesign, motu, terratec, metric halo, egosys, tascam,
......................... ;)
Give up chocolate.
Rudeness puts people on the defensive and makes them close ranks. It's a
natural response.
Never if it comes to corporations.
They either:
1. ignore you if their position is strong enough(sometimes even if they
have no such position, but there are successful and unsuccessful
companies)
2. accept your requirements is just
boosting their egos so that they can show you their finger next time you
need something. It happens always.
To you? always? Hmm.
12:10 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 09:59, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:58 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
Not me. Where's my burger...
I'm a member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals ;-)
Jan
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 06:20, tim hall wrote:
<SNIP>
I've been a vegetarian most of my adult life,
Me too.
12:21 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 10:12, Mark Knecht wrote:
I'm a member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals ;-)
Jan
And you guys do some damn good eating down in your neck of the woods!
Crawfish! Alligator! Andouille! Beignets! Laissez Les Bon Temps
Roulez!
Jan
> I've
been a vegetarian most of my adult life,
Me too.
Not me. Where's my burger...
1:44 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Not the ALSA driver, just the specs. To me.
And why would anyone do this? What do they gain? 1 (potentially) happy
customer? And a risk that you'll give the info away and
whatever their
secret is will be out of the bag.
Their secret is 0.3ms away from the secrets of others. And those 0.3 ms
can't even be guaranteed.
There's no value for them in doing this. If they don't want the
ingredients for their secret sauce known by other burger makers then
you cannot release the driver as Open Source, can you?
I think there's a difference between an ALSA driver and detailed
documentation. Anyway, it's possible to rip someone's IP off no matter
how well protected it is. I think it's been proved numberous times
throughout the history of digital era.
It only helps
you and not the community at large.
Seems like. OTOH everyone's talking about FW. So it doesn't seem like.
;)
But let's look at it from the card manufacturers perspective. He wasn't
involved in the community for several years, doesn't know its evolution,
nuances etc. He takes a look here, sees a few people saying "we're just
10 people here, guys let's give up anyway, it's not worth it".
Consequences are worse because there's little action going on.
Perhaps i'd be nice to start a petition of all rme and maudio users. But
we'd need to widely promote such activity so that we can reach almost
every rme or maudio / linux audiop user in the world.
Go for it. I'll sign up, depending on what the petition actually says.
I won't take part in threatening RME or any other company. Never if it
comes to corporations.
They either:
1. ignore you if their position is strong enough(sometimes even if they
have no such position, but there are successful and unsuccessful
companies)
2. accept your requirements
Wow! It appears that there are very few options in your world. is just
boosting their egos so that they can show you their finger next time you
need something. It happens always.
To you? always? Hmm.
2:19 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
http://eca.cx/lau/2004/11/0814.html
http://eca.cx/lau/2004/11/0901.html
http://eca.cx/lau/2004/11/0885.html
http://eca.cx/lau/2004/11/0919.html
OK - I contend that NONE of that makes ANY difference to RME. Just my 2 cents.
<SNIP>
If you want to make them big like Digi (they would like that) then we
need to find 50000 users. Big job...
Not the ALSA driver, just the specs. To me.
And why would anyone do this? What do they gain? 1 (potentially) happy
customer? Go for it.
I'll sign up, depending on what the petition actually says.
I won't take part in threatening RME or any other company.
No threatening. Just what i was talking about all the time. A linux
audio market research.
1 Dec
1 Dec
9:42 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 19:43, Marek Peteraj was like:
Just what i was talking about all the time. A linux
audio market research.
Positive solutions. Great. Let's do it. :-)
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
30 Nov
30 Nov
11:36 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] (OT) meat/not meat
tim hall wrote:
I love hobnobs, but they contain animal fats.
Damn. That's another thing to stop eating(!) I'm happily vegetarian, but
I find it really annoying that I need to read *every* ingredient on
*every* label to even come close to being sure that I'm not eating meat.
It's too easy to eat meat accidentally. I liked hob nobs too. I'm sure
that they'd taste just as good without the animal content.
Sorry for the waste of BW.
Michael
1 Dec
1 Dec
9:35 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] (OT) meat/not meat
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 15:40, Michael T Nelson was like:
Damn. That's another thing to stop eating(!)
I'm happily vegetarian, but
I find it really annoying that I need to read *every* ingredient on
*every* label to even come close to being sure that I'm not eating meat.
It's too easy to eat meat accidentally. I liked hob nobs too. I'm sure
that they'd taste just as good without the animal content.
It's possible that the plain chocolate ones are still vegan.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
10:31 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] (OT) meat/not meat
tim hall wrote:
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 15:40, Michael T Nelson
was like:
Well, there's a difference between 'vegetarian' and 'vegan'. If
hobnobs
(even the milk chocolate ones...) are vegetarian but not vegan, then I
feel happy to eat them. So, by 'animal fat', did you mean milk? Or does
the milk chocolate contain other animal fats?
Personally, I prefer plain chocolate anyway. Also, hobnobs are still
good without the chocolate.
Regards,
Michael
Damn. That's another thing to stop eating(!)
I'm happily vegetarian, but
I find it really annoying that I need to read *every* ingredient on
*every* label to even come close to being sure that I'm not eating meat.
It's too easy to eat meat accidentally. I liked hob nobs too. I'm sure
that they'd taste just as good without the animal content.
It's possible that the plain chocolate ones are still vegan.
2 Dec
2 Dec
7:40 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] (OT) meat/not meat
Last Wednesday 01 December 2004 14:34, Michael T Nelson was like:
So, by 'animal fat', did you mean milk?
No.
I understand and use the distinctions clearly.
Or does
the milk chocolate contain other animal fats?
They used to be vegetarian and then they changed the recipe.
I haven't looked since.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
30 Nov
30 Nov
1:57 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Then you throw a tantrum (sorry Nando).
Dude, c'mon, you got burned once, i feel for you. But let's get back to
reason.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
2:51 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Marek,
I want you to count backwards from 10 to zero with me:
10 Relax your muscles
09 Warm, calm feelings of surrender and compliance are
flowing over your body
08 You're getting sleepy
07 Sleepy
...
0
I want you to picture yourself in a tranquil world
where everyone is hugging and offering eachother
positive affirmations. Imagine delivering a Grammy
exceptance speech to the likes of John Lennon, Sting,
Elvin Jones, Ron Parker and Prince. Now thank RME for
the robust open source alsa drivers for your HDSP 9652
card without which you could never have produced your
masterpiece; titled Sugary, Sugary, Love, Love.
When you wake up...
ron
--- Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Then you throw a tantrum (sorry Nando).
Dude, c'mon, you got burned once, i feel for you.
But let's get back to
reason.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
6:58 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 07:51, R Parker wrote:
Marek,
I want you to count backwards from 10 to zero with me:
10 Relax your muscles
09 Warm, calm feelings of surrender and compliance are
flowing over your body
08 You're getting sleepy
07 Sleepy
...
0
Ron, why, instead of telling me this (and you should know that this is
worthless since i can't count to 10 ;), why don't you just tell RME that
you're a professional studio user that's using ardour and RME to get his
job done?
I want you to picture yourself in a tranquil world
where everyone is hugging and offering eachother
positive affirmations. Imagine delivering a Grammy
exceptance speech to the likes of John Lennon, Sting,
Elvin Jones, Ron Parker and Prince. Now thank RME for
the robust open source alsa drivers for your HDSP 9652
card without which you could never have produced your
masterpiece; titled Sugary, Sugary, Love, Love.
When you wake up...
Why are you so sure this wouldn't happen? Because i'm not.
You never know. there's Gilberto Gil recording a session on ardour.
Marek
3:56 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:57, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
No need to be sorry, I got a good (and needed) laugh over that. Thanks!
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Then you throw a tantrum (sorry Nando). Dude, c'mon, you got burned once, i feel for you.
But let's get back to
reason.
Sigh.... I don't think that's gonna happen, but well, we may be
surprised yet.
-- Fernando
6:23 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 08:56, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:57, Florin Andrei wrote:
Perhaps if a qualified majority on these lists said, we do not wish
further action and respect the companies for not providing specs. :)
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a believer.
Marek
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
No need to be sorry, I got a good (and needed) laugh over that. Thanks!
What if there's nothing else you can buy?
Then you throw a tantrum (sorry Nando). Dude, c'mon, you got burned once, i feel for
you. But let's get back to
reason.
Sigh.... I don't think that's gonna happen, but well, we may be
surprised yet.
8:48 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Marek Peteraj wrote:
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a believer.
Just a quick response to this: No, I don't think Marek is a fool. I've
met him and talked with him at length, he's a very serious and dedicated
Linux user who has some very definite ideas that he is not afraid to
articulate. I don't agree with him on all of his points, but I know that
he does think about them before spouting off into LA*. And in so far as
his ideas make *us* consider things in a different way I find his
commentary interesting and provocative.
AFAICT he's not nearly so good a dancer as Fernando, but perhaps he's
been practicing and will demonstrate some improved ability at LAC2005 ? ;)
Best,
dp
9:09 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 12:22, Marek Peteraj was like:
Perhaps if a qualified majority on these lists said,
we do not wish
further action and respect the companies for not providing specs. :)
No, we'd all like to be able to use firewire hw with linux.
This is just a discussion on strategy, which isn't going anywhere.
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a believer.
No, we think you're a zealot when really you're a sensitive muso.
Persist with Polite Positive Pressure please.
And don't forget to breathe. ;-)
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
1:44 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 14:09, tim hall wrote:
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 12:22, Marek Peteraj was
like:
Seems like it's not going to happen. Except egosys.
Perhaps if a qualified majority on these lists
said, we do not wish
further action and respect the companies for not providing specs. :)
No, we'd all like to be able to use firewire hw with linux. This is just a discussion on strategy, which isn't
going anywhere.
We did this before. I've done this personally (korg). I know what i'm
talking about. It's just begging, mortifying. Dear sir, now that I and
perhaps 200 other customers have paid for your product, would you be so
kind to at least provide some specs pleeeeasssse so that we can use it
with our OS of choice? Thank you in advance, thank you. Repeat that 2
years, over and over again, each week perhaps. No.
Marek
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a
believer.
No, we think you're a zealot when really you're a sensitive muso.
Persist with Polite Positive Pressure please.
11:13 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 11:43, Marek Peteraj wrote:
We did this before. I've done this personally (korg). I know what i'm
talking about. It's just begging, mortifying. Dear sir, now that I and
perhaps 200 other customers have paid for your product,
Too late. You don't have, at this point, any bargaining power.
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a believer.
No, we think you're a zealot when really you're a sensitive muso.
Persist with Polite Positive Pressure please. would you be so
kind to at least provide some specs pleeeeasssse so that we can use it
with our OS of choice? Thank you in advance, thank you. Repeat that 2
years, over and over again, each week perhaps. No.
_Don't_ buy the hardware in the first place. That's not gonna work. If
the company does not change its mind you are out of luck (as you have
found out). Find a product that is supported, buy and use it and tell
the other company about it. And even then it may not make a difference,
companies, like people, can be stubborn. Keep using other products.
I'm sure you don't want to be forced to do things you don't want to do,
yet that's what you want to do to others.
-- Fernando
1 Dec
1 Dec
7:30 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 04:13, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
That's not gonna work. It's not just me, think of lots of dualbooters
that are trying to get their hw run under linux.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 11:43, Marek Peteraj wrote:
We did this before. I've done this personally (korg). I know what i'm
talking about. It's just begging, mortifying. Dear sir, now that I and
perhaps 200 other customers have paid for your product,
Too late. You don't have, at this point, any bargaining power.
Exactly. Too late for me that i bought their @#$@#$ hardware.
Nevertheless, it's never too late to sell that damn thing.
Fernando, i *don't* *need* any bargaining power.
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a believer.
No, we think you're a zealot when really you're a sensitive muso.
Persist with Polite Positive Pressure please. would you be so
kind to at least provide some specs pleeeeasssse so that we can use it
with our OS of choice? Thank you in advance, thank you. Repeat that 2
years, over and over again, each week perhaps. No.
_Don't_ buy the hardware in the first place. That's not gonna work.
Yup. ;)
If
the company does not change its mind you are out of luck (as you have
found out). Find a product that is supported, buy and use it and tell
the other company about it.
Heheh, nooooo :)
And even then it may not make a difference,
companies, like people, can be stubborn. Keep using other products.
What if there are none? I want to use 8 analog i/o plus preamps with my
laptop. For example.
I'm sure you don't want to be forced to do things you don't want to do,
yet that's what you want to do to others.
Fernando, statements like these are starting to offend me. Look, a
customer-company relationship is DIFFERENT.
And concerning hatefilled arrogant agressive horrible insults that are
going nowhere.
Iriver. 2 years ago, their forums were FILLED with posts along the
lines:
F**K YOU IRIVER.
or
NEVER EVER.
Just because of Ogg Vorbis. Result?
Almost every product can handle vorbis files.
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS5968727553.html
And this is not the only *thing* we *should* fight for. Try to search
for linux sources on irivers website. Try to find them on Hartmanns
website although they have been *told* to comply with GPL (let's not
discuss this, look for thread called 'linux audio and breach of GPL' in
the archives, it's very well explained there).
So....
So a few guys here are unwillingly or even unknowingly defending the
freedom of choice of companies that don't allow us to buy and/or use
their products that we actually *want* to pay or already paid for.
Guys, this is sick.
I feel lost and lonely. And so i won't argue about that anymore. Period.
Marek
11:10 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 04:22, Marek Peteraj wrote:
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a believer.
Nope, I don't think so (to the fool part, of course).
It is the method you seem to choose I disagree with. Apparently you want
to turn this into some kind of war (and you want all of us in it, with
no disagreement, right). Then an "enemy" has to somehow be forced, for
their own good according to your perception, into releasing information
that they don't want to release. You are welcome to try that approach,
but don't be surprised if other penguins disagree with that strategy.
Many users sending polite letters to the companies involved asking for
support: good. But getting the users to do that: probably hard.
-- Fernando
11:38 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
It is the method you seem to choose I disagree with.
Apparently you want
to turn this into some kind of war (and you want all of us in it, with
no disagreement, right). Then an "enemy" has to somehow be forced, for
their own good according to your perception, into releasing information
that they don't want to release. You are welcome to try that approach,
but don't be surprised if other penguins disagree with that strategy.
I agree with you here Nando - there's no part in starting wars.
1 Dec
1 Dec
7:31 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 04:10, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 04:22, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What??
You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a
believer.
Nope, I don't think so (to the fool part, of course).
It is the method you seem to choose I disagree with. Apparently you want
to turn this into some kind of war (and you want all of us in it, with
no disagreement, right). Then an "enemy" has to somehow be forced,
for
their own good according to your perception,
Out of curiosity, what card are you using for audio?
into releasing information
that they don't want to release. You are welcome to try that approach,
but don't be surprised if other penguins disagree with that strategy.
Many users sending polite letters to the companies involved asking for
support: good.
You know, it's strange. I've send 2 polite letters to companies that
provide fw interfaces. Guess what. No response. Bummer. ;/
But getting the users to do that: probably hard.
Why should i get users to do that? They should care about themselves
too. Simple.
Marek
9:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: RME is no more
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:30, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 04:10, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
wrote:
Sigh, have I misunderstood the whole thing?
So far, unless I have missed something (too much email to follow so it
is possible), you think that hate filled posts and/or verbal abuse in
abundance will create the change we are seeking - which is more
companies releasing the specs needed to create drivers for audio cards
under linux. Is that more or less correct?
And you don't believe that the person or persons that run a company (big
or small) should choose what operating system or systems to support for
their hardware. Correct?
I would like to know if I'm completely missing the point before going
any further (I just erased a bunch of other stuff I wrote, no point in
sending it).
-- Fernando
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 04:22, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
What?? You guys think i'm a fool, but i'm a
believer.
Nope, I don't think so (to the fool part, of course).
It is the method you seem to choose I disagree with. Apparently you want
to turn this into some kind of war (and you want all of us in it, with
no disagreement, right). 
2 Dec
2 Dec
10:15 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Echo cards on Linux
Hi,
I'd like to add, concerning the recent discussion on Linux audio drivers
that an alsa driver for the older Echo cards has already been written
(and rewritten in C) by Giuliano Pochini, and though it is reportedly
working, AFAIK it is not yet part of alsa cvs, though Giuliano has
provided very generous support. I have an Echo Mona Laptop which we
haven't been able to get working, though the problem seems to be more a
PCMCIA issue than an alsa driver issue.
I just checked the echo audio page www.echoaudio.com and in the
developer section they have released the generic C++ drivers for the
rest of their card line that was missing (namely the Indigo (PCMCIA)
series and the new 3G (PCI) series), so it should be possible to write
alsa drivers for all Echo cards. We'll have to see what their policy is
regarding drivers with their announced firewire interface.
So here's another high quality option that I don't see much mentioned on
this list.
Cheers,
Andrés
BTW The Echo Mona Laptop has worked excellent for me in Windows.
Excellent quality and extremely reliable and efficient. I tried plugging
a digi 002 rack to my laptop and it was impossible to work with it-so
sluggish, you couldn't do much. Granted, my system is below digi's
recommended specs, but PCMCIA seems to give a much better performance
than firewire.
29 Nov
29 Nov
12:01 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Linux Audio DVD in Keyboards
Hi,
have a look at www.keyboards.de and click on the Tux ;-)
German Keyboards has published a bootable DVD that launches a Linux Audio
Live CD featuring the complete series of audio apps that ship with SUSE 9.2
(including PD and SuperCollider). A HTML-document provides information and
many links to demo scripts that start combinations of audio apps, including
synths (ams, AEOLUS, ZynAddSubFX, PD, SuperCollider), Hydrogen, NoteEdit and
JAAA. A complete sample recording session wired up with JACK and sent through
JAMin is also provided as script. The DVD also includes Ardour, MusE and
many other programs.
BTW This DVD is also a video-DVD, suitable for playback in standalone
DVD players. And it's the 20th anniversary edition of Keyboards.
The magazine will ship on friday, 3. december.
Greetings,
Matthias
--
Dr. Matthias Nagorni
SuSE Linux GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5 phone: +49 911 74053375
D - 90409 Nuernberg fax : +49 911 74053483
12:36 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Linux Audio DVD in Keyboards
måndagen den 29 november 2004 17.01 skrev Matthias Nagorni:
Hi,
have a look at www.keyboards.de and click on the Tux ;-)
German Keyboards has published a bootable DVD that launches a Linux Audio
Live CD featuring the complete series of audio apps that ship with SUSE 9.2
(including PD and SuperCollider). A HTML-document provides information and
many links to demo scripts that start combinations of audio apps, including
synths (ams, AEOLUS, ZynAddSubFX, PD, SuperCollider), Hydrogen, NoteEdit
and JAAA. A complete sample recording session wired up with JACK and sent
through JAMin is also provided as script. The DVD also includes Ardour,
MusE and many other programs.
BTW This DVD is also a video-DVD, suitable for playback in standalone
DVD players. And it's the 20th anniversary edition of Keyboards.
The magazine will ship on friday, 3. december.
Wow! Really great! This could be a big step for general recognition.
I have to start bugging the local magazines here in Sweden. ...again ;-)
/Robert
Greetings,
Matthias
--
http://spamatica.se/music/
2:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Linux Audio DVD in Keyboards
have a look at www.keyboards.de and click on the Tux
;-)
[...]
The magazine will ship on friday, 3. december.
Really cool. Great work. I'll buy this issue for sure ;-) .
Best regards
ce
1 Dec
1 Dec
12:49 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Linux Audio DVD in Keyboards
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Christoph Eckert wrote:
Really cool. Great work. I'll buy this issue for
sure ;-) .
Unfortunately the publisher did a serious mistake during final mastering:
They changed the Volume label _after_ they sent me the test-DVD.
==> Kernel Panic because it can not mount rootfs. It is however easy to fix it
by just burning a CD from the DVD:
mkisofs -o img.iso -udf -R -V 'KB-DVD 01-05' -no-emul-boot -boot-load-size 32
-b isolinux.bin -boot-info-table -c isolinux.boot /media/dvd/[a-z]*
assuming the DVD is mounted at /media/dvd
It's a bit sad since we put some effort into figuring out how to combine
Linux-, video- and data-content on the DVD and we tested it carefully
(apart from the very final master, due to incredible short deadlines).
Greetings,
Matthias
--
Dr. Matthias Nagorni
SuSE Linux GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5 phone: +49 911 74053375
D - 90409 Nuernberg fax : +49 911 74053483
1:33 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Linux Audio DVD in Keyboards
Hi,
Unfortunately the publisher did a serious mistake
during
final mastering: They changed the Volume label _after_ they
sent me the test-DVD. ==> Kernel Panic because it can not
mount rootfs. It is however easy to fix it by just burning
a CD from the DVD:
mkisofs -o img.iso -udf -R -V 'KB-DVD 01-05' -no-emul-boot
-boot-load-size 32 -b isolinux.bin -boot-info-table -c
isolinux.boot /media/dvd/[a-z]*
assuming the DVD is mounted at /media/dvd
It's a bit sad since we put some effort into figuring out
how to combine Linux-, video- and data-content on the DVD
and we tested it carefully (apart from the very final
master, due to incredible short deadlines).
Just a bit? You're a poor guy - putting all your heart into
this, I guess, and now?
Anyway, I guess we'd better need a HOWTO how to reburn the DVD
to CD for Windows or Mac, because this disc is intended
mainly to show windows (and even Mac) users what one can do
with a linux box.
Hope the Keyboards guys put the HOWTO (if it's possible at
all) on their mainpage ;-) .
Best regards
ce
2:10 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Linux Audio DVD in Keyboards
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Christoph Eckert wrote:
Anyway, I guess we'd better need a HOWTO how to
reburn the DVD
to CD for Windows or Mac, because this disc is intended
mainly to show windows (and even Mac) users what one can do
with a linux box.
Indeed, and of course we are working on it.
Hope the Keyboards guys put the HOWTO (if it's
possible at
all) on their mainpage ;-) .
Yes, they will. At this point I'd like to say that the Keyboards people
have always been very kind and helpful and, so far, also very accurate.
However in this case Murphy was just invited to show up because they
had too short deadlines and too much other content to take care of for
their 20 years anniversary edition. And they did not expect anything evil
could happen by changing the DVD label. I told them about this issue, but
they had a whole bunch of other problems and things in their head so
finally they just forgot about it.
Stay tuned, we'll see how this is fixed.
Greetings,
Matthias
--
Dr. Matthias Nagorni
SuSE Linux GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5 phone: +49 911 74053375
D - 90409 Nuernberg fax : +49 911 74053483
29 Nov
29 Nov
7:30 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo,
Mark Knecht hat gesagt: // Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:09:17 +0100, Frank Barknecht
<fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
Well, that's what I wrote: As long as you follow the license, you can
do everything you want with it. The free software licenses are
designed in a way, that you can do everything, that does not try to
take away the right to do everything with the software from other
users. Even the original "owner", the autor of the software, cannot
take away these rights once he released a piece of code under a libre
license. In this way he is as much an "owner" as you are. (He is more
"owner" in the case that he wants to double license his code under a
non-free licens, but then this piece of code is not free software
anymore. He still cannot take back the code he already had set free.)
I am not strictly talking "law" here. But e.g. the FSF is working on
freeing software from owners (Why Software Should Not Have Owners,
[1]) by giving authors the same rights as users (and thus making them
"owners", too, in a way)
[1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long
as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.)
This is so patently untrue I cannot imagine how you got here.
GPL == GP License
Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't
create
it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own
something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own
it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license
specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the
license.
28 Nov
28 Nov
6:54 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:36, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the
long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly
ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal
recourse:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html
IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is.
Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive.
I don't think so. Currently there are new fw products coming out, in a
few months time the audio market will be literally *flooded* with fw
audio stuff.
There's even mackie onyx analog mixer for which they offer an optional
fw card for. Most of them *will* deliver 2-3ms latency i bet.
And this under conditions which can't be guaranteed for many
reasons(mostly rock-solid hw configuration which is guesswork to build
most of the time, and *very* well tuned copy of windows that's
installed).
Heck i get crackles with a 256 setting with my fireface on an amd 2.2
system with amd761 northbridge and a g400(compared to what they claim,
i.e. 1ms latency), don't ask what it does on a i815 chipset(which is
crap chipset for critical applications such as audio but just to
demonstrate). Of course i can't blame the hw manufacturers for that,
it's simply impossible to guarantee that, it's just that it's achievable
under some specific conditions.
But nevertheless they *have* to deliver such performance because of the
market. Now everybody does hiding it's own research from each other and
the result is that there will be only these subtle differences in terms
of performance.
Who does suffer? Linux users.
This just shows how healthy and benefitial the collaborative open source
model is. Instead of working out an audio-over-ieee1394 standard they
will just hide the stuff because everybody is just stealing. (their way
of thinking) :/
So i think that no matter whether rme or other audio card manufacturer,
in this case it's just not valid at all.
Marek
Did this
happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer.
9:03 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Last Saturday 27 November 2004 21:36, Lee Revell was like:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the
long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly
ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal
recourse:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html
IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is.
Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue
is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux
driver, fine.
Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer
and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the
design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to
design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it
yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves -
they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of
business. In the case of the "Swizz Army Tuner", the original designers
were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them
_even if they won_ so could not take action.
I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the
hardware business is.
Yeah, If I was the MD of RME, after reading some of the responses on this
thread I'd be thinking of flippin' the bird at all these ungrateful linux
users. We're a minority group and I think the onus is on us to convince RME
to produce a driver for their firewire hardware, politely and if necessary,
via the florists ;-). OK, so closed-source drivers are far from ideal, but
better than a hole in the head.
It means that the drivers can't be bundled with distros and we won't be able
to provide users & developers with technical support, which is a great shame.
However, I suspect a certain amount of well-reasoned persistence will pay off
here. Sure, our numbers on this list aren't great, but they are significant.
People are now migrating to GNU/Linux systems on a daily basis, even the
'newbies' on this list are probably considered to be 'computer gurus'
amongst
their immediate circle of friends. This list is the tip of an iceberg.
OK, _very_ few people are using firewire technology for music, up till now I'd
considered it the preserve of mac/motu users. I think we should continue to
support RME where licenses allow and look forward to the day that they
release their firewire drivers :-). I think we should keep up the pressure on
manufacturers like MOTU too. They'll see sense eventually. ;-]
Mine is an equally naive viewpoint, but with the knowledge that a little bit
of positive thinking can go a long way, especially when backed up with a
well-researched wish-list and plenty of patience. Three years ago, I thought
owning my own DAW on next to no money was a bit of a naive pipe-dream.
Uh, ... be careful what you wish for! ;-)
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
Did this
happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer.
9:49 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:03, tim hall wrote:
Last Saturday 27 November 2004 21:36, Lee Revell was
like:
I think it's about defending the position of open source and its nature.
And the work that people do here no matter whether for fun or not.
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell
wrote:
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the
long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly
ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal
recourse:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html
IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is.
Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue
is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux
driver, fine.
Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer
and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the
design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to
design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it
yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves -
they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of
business. In the case of the "Swizz Army Tuner", the original designers
were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them
_even if they won_ so could not take action.
I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the
hardware business is.
Yeah, If I was the MD of RME, after reading some of the responses on this
thread I'd be thinking of flippin' the bird at all these ungrateful linux
users. Did this
happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. From now on every company that doesn't do it like
audioscience does, is
a plain loser to me, no matter whether they provide specs or
not. It's
because other people do the actual work + support providing.
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare.
Why the heck should we *always* understand them? Why can't they
understand *us*?
We're a minority group and I think the onus is on
us to convince RME
to produce a driver for their firewire hardware, politely and if necessary,
via the florists ;-). OK, so closed-source drivers are far from ideal, but
better than a hole in the head.
http://www.audioscience.com
If they can, who can't? I can't see the difference, can anyone explain?
It means that the drivers can't be bundled with distros and we won't be able
to provide users & developers with technical support, which is a great shame.
However, I suspect a certain amount of well-reasoned persistence will pay off
here. Sure, our numbers on this list aren't great, but they are significant.
There are many audio hw customers outside of this list (see CK's post
for example, or judging form experience - somewhere on #gnome talking
about rme ;) plus tons of talks on #lad - Q: "hi, what's the best card
for audio under linux? A: "rme or if you don't have that much money,
maudio")
OK, _very_ few people are using firewire technology for music, up till now I'd
considered it the preserve of mac/motu users.
I think a majority of pc based audio hw will be fw based in the near
future. Every manufacturer will have at least one product. Scary.
I think we should continue to
support RME where licenses allow and look forward to the day that they
release their firewire drivers :-).
That is going to be the day their hw becomes redundant on the market? Or
even discontinued? That's the problem i'm seeing.
I think we should keep up the pressure on
manufacturers like MOTU too. They'll see sense eventually. ;-]
I doubt it. They have their own sw products, like the DP. In their case
i can pretty much understand why they don't do that if they see linux
audio as a competition.
Mine is an equally naive viewpoint, but with the knowledge that a little bit
of positive thinking can go a long way, especially when backed up with a
well-researched wish-list and plenty of patience.
2 years korg and now this. Trust me it's not possible to cope with that
for a long time :)
Marek
10:22 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Last Sunday 28 November 2004 15:48, Marek Peteraj was like:
Why the heck should we *always* understand them? Why
can't they
understand *us*?
Because it's a two way process, which involves building trust.
I do fully understand your points about supporting the LADs that actually do
all the work and the importance of persuading everyone to move to an Open
Source model. The point is, that if we take the onus of responsibility, then
we remain in control of the process and stand a chance of winning over the
doubters through positive education.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
12:11 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:22, tim hall wrote:
Last Sunday 28 November 2004 15:48, Marek Peteraj was
like:
I used to believe in this too.
The positive education always somehow turns out to be sucking up to the
manufacturers.
Now the only chance for us i think is to just be rough, proud and treat
the manufacturers the way they deserve. The more people=customers or
potential customers do so, the better chance, and that doesn't concern
just this one issue. We're the ones who pay.
And if audioscience can provide it, so can anybody else.
Marek
Why the heck should we *always* understand them?
Why can't they
understand *us*?
Because it's a two way process, which involves building trust.
I do fully understand your points about supporting the LADs that actually do
all the work and the importance of persuading everyone to move to an Open
Source model. The point is, that if we take the onus of responsibility, then
we remain in control of the process and stand a chance of winning over the
doubters through positive education.
12:55 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
Guys,
Something to consider when planning to develop a firewire audio
interface... I'm still unable to get decent jackd/alsa performance (sub
50ms latency and clear sound w/full duplex) with my seemingly well
supported USB emi 2|6. I mean has anyone gotten decent low latency (sub
12ms) performance with a full-duplex USB device?
(BTW, yes I have appropriate patches applied, I'm able to get decent
latency/performance from my onboard generic Intel Corp. 82801DB/DBL/DBM
(ICH4/ICH4-L/ICH4-M) chip. It did work better before jack periods were
forced to be powers of 2.)
Anyway, to get to the point... isn't it true that firewire by virtue of
it's similar-to-USB-nature suffers from the same limitations as USB?
Iirc I was told that whatever limitations causing the (IMO) extreme
suckage of USB audio on linux will be present in a firewire interface.
I'm speaking from distant memory here as I've given up on my ~$400 USB
investment, which now collects dust.
What a shame it would be to expend effort and $$$ to find there's some
<cat /dev/random> issue that prevents firewire audio from working
acceptably.
-ry
2:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:55:46 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Guys,
Something to consider when planning to develop a firewire audio
interface... I'm still unable to get decent jackd/alsa performance (sub
50ms latency and clear sound w/full duplex) with my seemingly well
supported USB emi 2|6. I mean has anyone gotten decent low latency (sub
12ms) performance with a full-duplex USB device?
(BTW, yes I have appropriate patches applied, I'm able to get decent
latency/performance from my onboard generic Intel Corp. 82801DB/DBL/DBM
(ICH4/ICH4-L/ICH4-M) chip. It did work better before jack periods were
forced to be powers of 2.)
Anyway, to get to the point... isn't it true that firewire by virtue of
it's similar-to-USB-nature suffers from the same limitations as USB?
Iirc I was told that whatever limitations causing the (IMO) extreme
suckage of USB audio on linux will be present in a firewire interface.
I'm speaking from distant memory here as I've given up on my ~$400 USB
investment, which now collects dust.
What a shame it would be to expend effort and $$$ to find there's some
<cat /dev/random> issue that prevents firewire audio from working
acceptably.
-ry
Ryan,
Good points to keep in mind. However, I can say that I use
DigiDesign/Pro Tools 1394 under Windows with latencies that you would
term acceptable so I know it *can* be done. Whether is can be done
under Linux is another question.
*Most* 1394 devices under Windows use the normal Windows 1394
driver. QUESTION: Are the Linux 1394 drivers up to the task? I'm not
sure. I own 6 1394 peripherals. (3 hard drives, an external CDROM, an
external DVD and a video conferencing camera.) All work perfectly
under Windows. Under Linux 3 work, 3 do not. There are only about 5
people developing the 1394 stack under Linux. The stack has been in
development since 1999. This does not make me confident about Linux
and 1394 unless this hardware project was to undertake ensuring that
the 1394 stack gets attention from our hardware/software developers
should it need it.
I will also raise the question 'why can't USB attain the latencies
you want under Linux?' I *think* they can be attained under Windows,
so why not Linux? Does this say something about the USB stack? USB
support under Alsa? I don't know and I'm not capable of finding out.
Unfortunately, Alsa (as I see it, and which is probably an
uninformed view) is really only a few people. I think that there are
not enough people developing Alsa, and then developing Alsa drivers,
to ensure it works as well as the hardware specs can support.
As background, I helped write the 1394-2000. (Small contributions
only, but I was part of the committee.) I can say with certainty that
hardware like we are talking about was contemplated in the committee
meetings. I firmly believe that this project is completely within the
capabilities of 1394. Whether we are good enough hardware and software
designers would have to be shown. On this point I am confident.
Cheers,
Mark
3:56 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:14 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
True, USB audio works wonderfully under windows and OS X. Sub 6ms
glitch free latency. But... Mark googling around I found discussions
you and I have had about USB/Firewire audio more than a year ago, then
resumed next year and now again for the third year:
http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrma/2002-December/000836.h…
http://www.eca.cx/lau/2003/12/0442.html
Here's why I'm sadly of the opinion something like a custom 1394 card
wont work;
More than two years pass and USB is still useless for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
USB audio is ubiquitous in the windows/mac world and is pretty damn
common umong linux users I'm guessing. (How many laptop users out
there?) USB audio is a perfectly reasonable technology despite whatever
predjudices people may have.
I'm left to believe that there is 1) not enough developer/user interest
to make USB audio work well or 2) linux is not up to the task of running
USB audio interfaces 3) (less likely) a strong bias against USB by
developers.
Now if 1 or 2 are true for USB, I'm guessing they'll be true for
FireWire, if 3 is the reason for USB audio err... "not working so good"
on linux well... there may be hope for FireWire.
Either way, I'm sorry but if we can't even have functional low-latency
USB audio, how could it possibly be that FireWire will be supported, now
add to it the task of developing the hardware?
Even were it to be supported, the USB user base must be absolutely HUGE
compared to any potential FireWire base.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:55:46 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Guys,
<snip>
Anyway, to get
to the point... isn't it true that firewire by virtue of
it's similar-to-USB-nature suffers from the same limitations as USB?
Iirc I was told that whatever limitations causing the (IMO) extreme
suckage of USB audio on linux will be present in a firewire interface.
I'm speaking from distant memory here as I've given up on my ~$400 USB
investment, which now collects dust.
What a shame it would be to expend effort and $$$ to find there's some
<cat /dev/random> issue that prevents firewire audio from working
acceptably.
-ry
Ryan,
Good points to keep in mind. However, I can say that I use
DigiDesign/Pro Tools 1394 under Windows with latencies that you would
term acceptable so I know it *can* be done. Whether is can be done
under Linux is another question. *Most* 1394 devices under Windows use the normal
Windows 1394
driver. QUESTION: Are the Linux 1394 drivers up to the task? I'm not
sure.
I'm sure the generic 1394 drivers are approaching the performance of
windows now. But I'm operating under the assumption the audio end of
things are going to require a bit more coding.
I own 6 1394 peripherals. (3 hard drives, an external
CDROM, an
external DVD and a video conferencing camera.) All work perfectly
under Windows. Under Linux 3 work, 3 do not. There are only about 5
people developing the 1394 stack under Linux. The stack has been in
development since 1999. This does not make me confident about Linux
and 1394 unless this hardware project was to undertake ensuring that
the 1394 stack gets attention from our hardware/software developers
should it need it.
I can't see how it could possibly gain that needed attention.
I will also raise the question 'why can't
USB attain the latencies
you want under Linux?' I *think* they can be attained under Windows,
so why not Linux? Does this say something about the USB stack? USB
support under Alsa? I don't know and I'm not capable of finding out.
Ah, Mark but we've tried for years haven't we ;-)
Unfortunately, Alsa (as I see it, and which is
probably an
uninformed view) is really only a few people. I think that there are
not enough people developing Alsa, and then developing Alsa drivers,
to ensure it works as well as the hardware specs can support.
As background, I helped write the 1394-2000. (Small contributions
only, but I was part of the committee.) I can say with certainty that
hardware like we are talking about was contemplated in the committee
meetings. I firmly believe that this project is completely within the
capabilities of 1394. Whether we are good enough hardware and software
designers would have to be shown. On this point I am confident.
Mark it's a knoble cause and I support your efforts, but... well I just
can't believe we could develop a FireWire Audio interface and
software/drivers to run it when exponentially more popular USB audio is
still languishing if not completely ignored.
It's a horse before the carriage issue, the support will need to be
there before $$$ is invested in hardware, it's like designing and
building a car from scratch with no road to drive it on.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
4:24 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:06 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/view.php?id=521
Is the most recent one addressing lack of low latency full-duplex.
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
More than two years pass and USB is still useless
for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
What is the ALSA bug report number?
4:32 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:24 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:06 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
For further reference here's the jackd bug number.
http://jackit.sourceforge.net/mantis/view.php?id=17
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/view.php?id=521
Is the most recent one addressing lack of low latency full-duplex.
More than two years pass and USB is still useless
for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
What is the ALSA bug report number?
4:39 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:32 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
For further reference here's the jackd bug
number.
http://jackit.sourceforge.net/mantis/view.php?id=17
Wow, they _finally_ fixed the bug tracker... I had been trying to sign
up for months ;-)
Lee
4:35 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:24 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:06 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Can you provide more information? What exactly doesn't work? What are
the symptoms?
Lee
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/view.php?id=521
Is the most recent one addressing lack of low latency full-duplex. More than two years pass and USB is still useless
for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
What is the ALSA bug report number?
4:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:35 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:24 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
OK never mind the info is all in the JACK bug report.
Lee
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:06 -0500, Lee Revell
wrote:
Can you provide more information? What exactly doesn't work? What are
the symptoms? On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/view.php?id=521
Is the most recent one addressing lack of low latency full-duplex. More than two years pass and USB is still useless
for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
What is the ALSA bug report number?
4:51 p.m.
New subject: low latency USB audio broken? [was Re: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:35 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Can you provide more information? What exactly
doesn't work? What are
the symptoms?
OK I updated the JACK bug report. Can you (or any USB audio users)
repeat the test with the latest JACK and ALSA versions (preferably from
CVS), with both alsaplayer and jackd, at 44100 and 48000Hz? Also please
try the JACK test in full duplex, capture only, and playback only mode.
Lee
7:18 p.m.
New subject: low latency USB audio broken? [was Re: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:51 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:35 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Sure, glad to (though I'm not set up to do capture only). Thanks for
taking an interest.
The results with CVS jackd and (very recent alsa 1.0.7) on a 2.6.8.1
kernel with volluntary-preempt are... the same as a year ago.
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 256 -g 8
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 256 -g 4
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 128 -g 8
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 128 -g 4
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 64 -g 8
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 64 -g 4
-all produce clean sound
alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 64 -g 2
- noise
AND running -> alsaplayer -o jack
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1
- regular pops and crackle (plus an "aliasing" sound)
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 48000
- regular pops and crackle (plus an "aliasing" sound)
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 48000 -n 3
- clean (plus an "aliasing" sound)
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 48000 -P
- clean (plus an "aliasing" sound)
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 48000 -P -p ( < 1024) -n 3
- regular pops and crackle (plus an "aliasing" sound)
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 44100
- regular pops and crackle
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 44100 -P
- clean
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -p 512 -n 4 -r 44100
- clean
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -p 512 -n 2 -r 44100
- regular pops and crackle
jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -P -p 512 -n 2 -r 44100
- regular pops and crackle (somewhat less)
I'm guessing that -> alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 64 -g 4
is analogous to -> jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -p 64 -n 4 -P
So... why can alsa do this low lat playback but not jackd? Wierd.
This leads me to think that this may be a jackd problem more than a
USB/alsa problem, which bodes well for those praying for FireWire
support.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
Can you provide more information? What exactly
doesn't work? What are
the symptoms?
OK I updated the JACK bug report. Can you (or any USB audio users)
repeat the test with the latest JACK and ALSA versions (preferably from
CVS), with both alsaplayer and jackd, at 44100 and 48000Hz? Also please
try the JACK test in full duplex, capture only, and playback only mode.
7:34 p.m.
New subject: low latency USB audio broken? [was Re: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 17:17 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:51 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
You can do capture only like:
jackd -d alsa -C hw:1 ...
and playback only with:
jackd -d alsa -P hw:1 ...
How does this sound? It's possible that capture and playback interfere
with each other.
Lee
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:35 -0500, Lee Revell
wrote:
Sure, glad to (though I'm not set up to do capture only). Thanks for
taking an interest.
The results with CVS jackd and (very recent alsa 1.0.7) on a 2.6.8.1
kernel with volluntary-preempt are... the same as a year ago. Can you provide more information? What exactly
doesn't work? What are
the symptoms?
OK I updated the JACK bug report. Can you (or any USB audio users)
repeat the test with the latest JACK and ALSA versions (preferably from
CVS), with both alsaplayer and jackd, at 44100 and 48000Hz? Also please
try the JACK test in full duplex, capture only, and playback only mode.
7:49 p.m.
New subject: low latency USB audio broken? [was Re: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 18:34 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 17:17 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Yeah, I know how to do playback only (thanks - see the tests for results
of -P). The emi 2|6 has no mic pres and I don't have a line level
source to feed it atm so I can't do capture only tests... as of now I
havent gotten it to actually capture anything, that'll be the next round
of testing.
I'm also playing around with -n with some preliminarily good results...
I'll post a followup in a while.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:51 -0500, Lee Revell
wrote:
You can do capture only like:
jackd -d alsa -C hw:1 ...
and playback only with:
jackd -d alsa -P hw:1 ...
How does this sound? It's possible that capture and playback interfere
with each other. On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 15:35 -0500, Lee Revell
wrote:
Sure, glad to (though I'm not set up to do capture only). Thanks for
taking an interest.
The results with CVS jackd and (very recent alsa 1.0.7) on a 2.6.8.1
kernel with volluntary-preempt are... the same as a year ago. Can you provide more information? What exactly
doesn't work? What are
the symptoms?
OK I updated the JACK bug report. Can you (or any USB audio users)
repeat the test with the latest JACK and ALSA versions (preferably from
CVS), with both alsaplayer and jackd, at 44100 and 48000Hz? Also please
try the JACK test in full duplex, capture only, and playback only mode.
8:12 p.m.
New subject: low latency USB audio broken? [was Re: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 17:49 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
Yeah, I know how to do playback only (thanks - see the
tests for results
of -P). The emi 2|6 has no mic pres and I don't have a line level
source to feed it atm so I can't do capture only tests... as of now I
havent gotten it to actually capture anything, that'll be the next round
of testing.
I'm also playing around with -n with some preliminarily good results...
I'll post a followup in a while.
Sorry, I missed that.
Anyway this discussion should move to the JACK list.
Lee
9:08 p.m.
New subject: low latency USB audio broken? [was Re: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:11 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 17:49 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Ok,
Some people here may be interested in seeing where I'm at though so
here's the tail end of what I'm posting to jackit-devel:
Guessing that -> alsaplayer -r -d hw:1 -f 64 -g 4
is analogous to -> jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -p 64 -n 4 -P
I tried jackd -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -p 64 -n 8 and YEAH!!! low latency
duplex! Err... almost...
So I decided to get input working (emi has no mic pres so I hooked up a
tape deck and played some "Schoolhouse Rock" through the emi.
Things sound good for a while then I get a blast of about 22 messages
like these (accompanied by some ugly noise in playback):
delay of 1771.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1291.000; restart ...
18:35:06.777 XRUN callback (1).
delay of 8947.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1291.000; restart ...
18:35:06.788 XRUN callback (2).
delay of 4257.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1303.000; restart ...
18:35:06.984 XRUN callback (3).
delay of 8909.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1303.000; restart ...
18:35:06.993 XRUN callback (4).
Then nice clean playback again for a few minutes and another blast:
delay of 5536.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1234.000; restart ...
18:45:06.692 XRUN callback (23).
delay of 9070.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1234.000; restart ...
18:45:06.702 XRUN callback (24).
delay of 5056.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1234.000; restart ...
18:45:06.897 XRUN callback (25).
delay of 8971.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1234.000; restart ...
18:45:06.907 XRUN callback (26).
delay of 4544.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 1229.000; restart ...
18:45:07.101 XRUN callback (27).
Rinse and repeat.
Anyway, the upshot is I'm excited to be getting this close to having my
emi 2|6 be functional low-lat and full duplex.
I'll continue the hunt on jack.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
Yeah, I know how to do playback only (thanks -
see the tests for results
of -P). The emi 2|6 has no mic pres and I don't have a line level
source to feed it atm so I can't do capture only tests... as of now I
havent gotten it to actually capture anything, that'll be the next round
of testing.
I'm also playing around with -n with some preliminarily good results...
I'll post a followup in a while.
Sorry, I missed that.
Anyway this discussion should move to the JACK list.
4:23 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
It is true tha the two technologies approach the same problems quite
differently..
No - even 1394 hard drive performance is notably lacking compared to
Windows. I've been on the 1394 development lists since 1999 when the
project started. That team still says, after 5 years, that there is no
work going on to improve performace measured by hdparm, etc. They are
focused on just making it work reliably. When 2.6 came along the new
team decided to rework almost the whole stack. They are still trying
to make it work correctly. Folks on the 1394-users list still
routinely tell people to stick with 2.4 kernels. We're now at
Linux-2.6.9. Linux said he didn't expect 2.6 to take as long to get
stable as 2.4 did, but stability is not only the kernel but all the
pieces that attacha nd make the hardware work. Linux-1394 is probably
8-10 kernel releases away from stablity and real device support,
unfortunately. (The are jsut my opinions and do not reporesent what
that team might say of feel.)
Well, that would be a problem, and if you are right then I would not
undertake the program at all.
:-) ;-) :-) ;-) Yes, for many years...
<hehe!!> I like that analogy. I don't totally share the gloomy
picture, but I completely admit you might be right!
- Mark
Ryan,
Good points to keep in mind. However, I can say that I use
DigiDesign/Pro Tools 1394 under Windows with latencies that you would
term acceptable so I know it *can* be done. Whether is can be done
under Linux is another question.
True, USB audio works wonderfully under windows and OS X. Sub 6ms
glitch free latency. But... Mark googling around I found discussions
you and I have had about USB/Firewire audio more than a year ago, then
resumed next year and now again for the third year:
http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrma/2002-December/000836.h…
http://www.eca.cx/lau/2003/12/0442.html
Here's why I'm sadly of the opinion something like a custom 1394 card
wont work;
More than two years pass and USB is still useless for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
Probably not, but if so I hope they speak up...
USB audio is ubiquitous in the windows/mac world and is pretty damn
common umong linux users I'm guessing. (How many laptop users out
there?) USB audio is a perfectly reasonable technology despite whatever
predjudices people may have.
I'm left to believe that there is 1) not enough developer/user interest
to make USB audio work well or 2) linux is not up to the task of running
USB audio interfaces 3) (less likely) a strong bias against USB by
developers.
Now if 1 or 2 are true for USB, I'm guessing they'll be true for
FireWire, if 3 is the reason for USB audio err... "not working so good"
on linux well... there may be hope for FireWire.
Well, I think there is another HUGE problem that's hardly addressed in
the Linux world. We all know it'd true. Many Linux developers do not
have access to the hardware they are developing drivers for. I don't
know if this applies to your hardware, but in my case Thomas
Charbonnel never had the HDSP 9652 to do his development work with.
It's no wonder that my driver problems were never explicitly solved. I
think that in the case of an Open Source hardware project there is a
good chance to put 5-10 of these in the hands of developers and to
break that cycle.
Either way, I'm sorry but if we can't even have functional low-latency
USB audio, how could it possibly be that FireWire will be supported, now
add to it the task of developing the hardware?
Yep, it's a big problem. Huge. I appreciate folks like you and Ron
Parker who will speak up and say what you think. It's important.
Even were it to be supported, the USB user base must be absolutely HUGE
compared to any potential FireWire base.
Current base - yes. Potential base - I think they are essentially
identical. There's littel cost difference between the hardware cast of
1394 and USB. Most laptops come with 1394 today. USB has it's
downsides also, which we are not discussing here, but they exist.
*Most* 1394 devices under Windows use the
normal Windows 1394
driver. QUESTION: Are the Linux 1394 drivers up to the task? I'm not
sure.
I'm sure the generic 1394 drivers are approaching the performance of
windows now. But I'm operating under the assumption the audio end of
things are going to require a bit more coding. I own 6 1394 peripherals. (3 hard drives, an
external CDROM, an
external DVD and a video conferencing camera.) All work perfectly
under Windows. Under Linux 3 work, 3 do not. There are only about 5
people developing the 1394 stack under Linux. The stack has been in
development since 1999. This does not make me confident about Linux
and 1394 unless this hardware project was to undertake ensuring that
the 1394 stack gets attention from our hardware/software developers
should it need it.
I can't see how it could possibly gain that needed attention. I will also raise the question 'why
can't USB attain the latencies
you want under Linux?' I *think* they can be attained under Windows,
so why not Linux? Does this say something about the USB stack? USB
support under Alsa? I don't know and I'm not capable of finding out.
Ah, Mark but we've tried for years haven't we ;-) Unfortunately, Alsa (as I see it, and which is
probably an
uninformed view) is really only a few people. I think that there are
not enough people developing Alsa, and then developing Alsa drivers,
to ensure it works as well as the hardware specs can support.
As background, I helped write the 1394-2000. (Small contributions
only, but I was part of the committee.) I can say with certainty that
hardware like we are talking about was contemplated in the committee
meetings. I firmly believe that this project is completely within the
capabilities of 1394. Whether we are good enough hardware and software
designers would have to be shown. On this point I am confident.
Mark it's a knoble cause and I support your efforts, but... well I just
can't believe we could develop a FireWire Audio interface and
software/drivers to run it when exponentially more popular USB audio is
still languishing if not completely ignored.
It's a horse before the carriage issue, the support will need to be
there before $$$ is invested in hardware, it's like designing and
building a car from scratch with no road to drive it on.
4:33 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:23 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
The usb-usx2y stuff works great (Tascam gear, not sure what else),
people get very low latencies, but you have to use the specific hwdep
JACK driver. The problem is something like "USB's inability to
atomically handle power of 2 period sizes".
I was not aware the situation was that bad. I guess you are referring
to the snd-usb-audio driver? Please file an ALSA bug report, including
the exact hardware. If it works on Windows but not on Linux, that's a
bug.
Lee
More than two years pass and USB is still useless for low latency work
under linux. Anyone out there have a different experience?
Probably not, but if so I hope they speak up...
5:21 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-28-11 at 10:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
Anyway, to get to the point... isn't it true that
firewire by virtue of
it's similar-to-USB-nature suffers from the same limitations as USB?
Iirc I was told that whatever limitations causing the (IMO) extreme
suckage of USB audio on linux will be present in a firewire interface.
Firewire isn't very similar to USB /at all/, other than the fact that
they're external busses that can be used to connect things to a
computer.
Look at some information about the architechture of each system, they're
drastically different (Firewire being vastly superior in every single
way, for the record)
For one thing, Firewire doesn't require a host computer at all, whereas
USB of course does. Firewire devices will figure out the layout of the
firewire 'network' and establish appropriate master/slave relationships
all by themselves, no computer needed. That should give an idea how
similar they are.
--
Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca>
6:12 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 16:20 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sun, 2004-28-11 at 10:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Of course there are major differences. But there *are* similarities
beyond those listed here.
I'm no expert but this cryptic note from a jack developer hints at the
USB issues... I recall someone saying the same is true for FireWire.
"...problem is due to JACK demanding power of two buffer sizes while USB
devices typically demand an even number of milliseconds. This causes the
sound to break up when running at even moderately low latencies." - joq
So apparently it's about how data is transmitted, milliseconds vs.
size.
This is all conjecture on my part, I'm not a programmer type.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
Anyway, to get to the point... isn't it true
that firewire by virtue of
it's similar-to-USB-nature suffers from the same limitations as USB?
Iirc I was told that whatever limitations causing the (IMO) extreme
suckage of USB audio on linux will be present in a firewire interface.
Firewire isn't very similar to USB /at all/, other than the fact that
they're external busses that can be used to connect things to a
computer.
Look at some information about the architechture of each system, they're
drastically different (Firewire being vastly superior in every single
way, for the record)
For one thing, Firewire doesn't require a host computer at all, whereas
USB of course does. Firewire devices will figure out the layout of the
firewire 'network' and establish appropriate master/slave relationships
all by themselves, no computer needed. That should give an idea how
similar they are.
6:26 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] open source firewire
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:12:44 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 16:20 -0500, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Ryan,
I'm not a programmer either so you and I are in the same boat.
However, and with the greatest respect for the developers of Alsa,
Jack and all that goes with it, just using logic it seems to me that
this statement cannot be an all encompassing answer for the problems
you are seeing. If it was irrefutably true then USB audio wouldn't
work under windows or Mac OS's either, would it?
It seem to me, and just speaking from a logical perspective and not
a techncial one, that if USB audio cannot be made to work well under
Linux when it does (apparent;y) work well under Windows and Mac OS's
that there must be a problem with either Alsa, Jack or Linux itself. I
cannot say which one, but I think my statement is true from a lagical
perspective.
- Mark
On Sun, 2004-28-11 at 10:55 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Of course there are major differences. But there *are* similarities
beyond those listed here.
I'm no expert but this cryptic note from a jack developer hints at the
USB issues... I recall someone saying the same is true for FireWire.
"...problem is due to JACK demanding power of two buffer sizes while USB
devices typically demand an even number of milliseconds. This causes the
sound to break up when running at even moderately low latencies." - joq
So apparently it's about how data is transmitted, milliseconds vs.
size.
This is all conjecture on my part, I'm not a programmer type.
Anyway, to get to the point... isn't it true
that firewire by virtue of
it's similar-to-USB-nature suffers from the same limitations as USB?
Iirc I was told that whatever limitations causing the (IMO) extreme
suckage of USB audio on linux will be present in a firewire interface.
Firewire isn't very similar to USB /at all/, other than the fact that
they're external busses that can be used to connect things to a
computer.
Look at some information about the architechture of each system, they're
drastically different (Firewire being vastly superior in every single
way, for the record)
For one thing, Firewire doesn't require a host computer at all, whereas
USB of course does. Firewire devices will figure out the layout of the
firewire 'network' and establish appropriate master/slave relationships
all by themselves, no computer needed. That should give an idea how
similar they are.
2:29 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare.
Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the source for this claim?
Thanks in advance.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
3 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:28, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
I meant overall marketshare. There are a lot of audio enthusiasts that
are customers. I don't know how many users use linux audio apps for pro
audio productions (IIRC there were quite a few people on the ardour
mailing list), but this alone isn't the only thing the hw manufacturers
are interested in simply because there aren't as many pro audio studios
out there as there are manufacturers and their product types.
So the target group becomes broader yet undefined even though the
products are aimed for professional usage. I believe that the number of
pro audio hw customers that are also linux user lies somewhere between
500-1000. It's a rough guess and it would be interesting to know more
precisely, because it could be that the linux audio market is already
more interesting than the macosx market becasue of higher number of
enthusiasts willing to pay for pro hardware. It hasn't been measured
yet, and it's similar to overall marketshare where the number could be
higher because it's difficult to measure the number of dualbooters.
Perhaps i'm just being optimistic.
Marek
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare.
Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the source for this claim?
Thanks in advance.
3:09 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Greetings:
Just so this simple equation isn't overlooked:
pro-audio != "high-end $$$ studio owners and operators recording pop
music"
If we take that into consideration, Marek's assertion may well be
correct, there are a lot of people working with pro-quality gear outside
of professional recording studios. I've noticed that pros in the studios
tend to think of themselves as the *only* professionals in the field.
That being said, if we accept the narrower and more commonly
understood meaning of the term "pro-audio" I doubt we'd come up with 50
such users. Frankly, I doubt that there's 20...
Also, I like the suggestion that we should start a dialog with the
AudioScience people.
Best,
dp
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:28, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
I meant overall marketshare. There are a lot of audio enthusiasts that
are customers. I don't know how many users use linux audio apps for pro
audio productions (IIRC there were quite a few people on the ardour
mailing list), but this alone isn't the only thing the hw manufacturers
are interested in simply because there aren't as many pro audio studios
out there as there are manufacturers and their product types.
So the target group becomes broader yet undefined even though the
products are aimed for professional usage. I believe that the number of
pro audio hw customers that are also linux user lies somewhere between
500-1000. It's a rough guess and it would be interesting to know more
precisely, because it could be that the linux audio market is already
more interesting than the macosx market becasue of higher number of
enthusiasts willing to pay for pro hardware. It hasn't been measured
yet, and it's similar to overall marketshare where the number could be
higher because it's difficult to measure the number of dualbooters.
Perhaps i'm just being optimistic.
Marek
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a
greater marketshare.
Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the source for this claim?
Thanks in advance.
3:36 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:58:57 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:28, Chris Metzler wrote:
<SNIP>
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
I meant overall marketshare.
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare.
Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the source for this claim?
Thanks in advance. I believe that the number of
pro audio hw customers that are also linux user lies somewhere between
500-1000. It's a rough guess and it would be interesting to know more
precisely...
<SNIP>
Not fine grained enough...
1) # of Pro Audio users depending on Ardour for day to day recording.
0 or 1? (Ron - speak up!) ;-)
2) # of Pro Audio users using Linux soft synths?
3) # of Pro Audio users using Linux as a command line tool for
pre/post-processing of wave files?
Depending on the task the use may be much larger (or sadly smaller)
than thought...
- Mark
4:03 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 20:36, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:58:57 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
No not really. At least 6-7 people showed up on ardour mailinglists.
It's possible to look it up but would eat a lot of time.
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:28, Chris Metzler
wrote:
<SNIP>
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
I meant overall marketshare.
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare.
Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the source for this claim?
Thanks in advance. I believe that the number of
pro audio hw customers that are also linux user lies somewhere between
500-1000. It's a rough guess and it would be interesting to know more
precisely...
<SNIP>
Not fine grained enough...
1) # of Pro Audio users depending on Ardour for day to day recording.
0 or 1? (Ron - speak up!) ;-)
2) # of Pro Audio users using Linux soft synths?
3) # of Pro Audio users using Linux as a command line tool for
pre/post-processing of wave files?
Not really relevant. The only thing that relevant here is how many linux
audio users are customers of pro audio vendors no matter what usage.
Marek
6:08 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hi,
--- Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:58:57 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
<SNIP>
It's not a large number of users but it's a very high
quality user group. I think it's actually an
incredible accomplishment and love being part of it.
I've learned alot from Linux Audio people.
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:28, Chris Metzler
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
> Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a
greater marketshare.
>
> Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the
source for this claim?
Thanks in
advance.
I meant overall marketshare. I believe that the number of
pro audio hw customers that are also linux user
lies somewhere between
500-1000. It's a rough guess and it would be
interesting to know more
precisely...
<SNIP> Not fine grained enough...
1) # of Pro Audio users depending on Ardour for day
to day recording.
0 or 1? (Ron - speak up!) ;-)
I know of several other pro audio users.
All my commercial audio work is done using Ardour and
JAMin. At the moment I've got three start to finish
full albums, two mix and master albums and two albums
for mastering in progress. I've got several four to
six song demos in progress. I've probably produced
start to finish two full albums, a half dozen start
to finish demos and mastered a bunch of stuff.
Within a week or two I expect another MPLS, MN Ardour
user and I to begin equiping a truck for remote pro
audio work and it will be a Linux Audio operation.
2) # of Pro Audio users using Linux soft synths?
3) # of Pro Audio users using Linux as a command
line tool for
pre/post-processing of wave files?
Depending on the task the use may be much larger (or
sadly smaller)
than thought...
IMO, the number and quality of users and developers is
obviously big enough to qualify Linux Audio as an up
and coming contender. Someone else mentioned seeing
new users on the list almost daily. I've noticed the
same thing. We can keep doing exactly what we have
been doing and in due time we will have and be
everything we want.
These are great times for us and unless I am being
unrealistic I couldn't be happier.
ron
- Mark
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
5:47 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:58:57 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:28, Chris Metzler wrote:
At this point, I dunno whether I even believe that. The one well-
publicized claim in this regard that I'm aware of, from Dan Kuznetzky/
IDC, has been roundly trashed by most other business analysts. It's
hard to know for sure, of course, since Linux is not distributed in a
comparatively easily quantifiable way like MacOS is. But assuming
that Linux is gaining ground compared to MacOS, most studies I've seen
have indicated that the biggest desktop Linux growth is coming from
things like PCs used as point-of-sale systems, and large networks of
telephone call center machines, and stuff like that. Those are not
the machines/users that are going to be doing serious audio work.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:48:05 +0100
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
I meant overall marketshare.
If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare.
Among pro-audio users? Can you show me the source for this claim?
Thanks in advance. I believe that the number of
pro audio hw customers that are also linux user lies somewhere between
500-1000.
I too don't know what this number should be. But if it's the one
you give here, that's a small number.
It hasn't been measured
yet, and it's similar to overall marketshare where the number could be
higher because it's difficult to measure the number of dualbooters.
Agreed.
Perhaps i'm just being optimistic.
I think so. But in the long term, I think there's every reason to be
optimistic. We've all seen the absurd amount of change just in the last
several years. I think there's every reason to be optimistic for the
propsects of desktop Linux, and Linux as a fairly mainstream choice for
DAWs etc. But naturally, we all want the long term to be right now.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
6 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 16:46 -0500, Chris Metzler wrote:
At this point, I dunno whether I even believe that.
The one well-
publicized claim in this regard that I'm aware of, from Dan Kuznetzky/
IDC, has been roundly trashed by most other business analysts. It's
hard to know for sure, of course, since Linux is not distributed in a
comparatively easily quantifiable way like MacOS is.
It's also apples and oranges, because the application is different.
Most Linux is in data centers and ISPs where you might have 50 or
hundreds in a room. Most MacOS is on the desktop at home.
Comparing the total installed base is meaningless. If you are talking
about 'pro audio' (in the broad sense of anyone who uses their computer
for any music making/recording, not just people who do it for a living)
then MacOS and Windows have WAY more users.
But, many of those users I talk to are not as happy with their audio
platform as you would think.
Lee
6:30 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:00:38 -0500
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 16:46 -0500, Chris Metzler wrote:
Hehe, yeah, that was the content of the rest of my paragraph that you
snipped.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
At this point, I dunno whether I even believe
that. The one well-
publicized claim in this regard that I'm aware of, from Dan Kuznetzky/
IDC, has been roundly trashed by most other business analysts. It's
hard to know for sure, of course, since Linux is not distributed in a
comparatively easily quantifiable way like MacOS is.
It's also apples and oranges, because the application is different.
Most Linux is in data centers and ISPs where you might have 50 or
hundreds in a room. Most MacOS is on the desktop at home. 
29 Nov
29 Nov
8:35 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.
>
> It's also apples and oranges, because the application is different.
> Most Linux is in data centers and ISPs where you might have 50 or
> hundreds in a room. Most MacOS is on the desktop at home.
ok i'm going to add two more cents to this pot, worth exactly that.
first off, i use os x more than i use linux. this is because i carry a
powerbook on tour with me and perform with it every night. when i can i
also carry my sharp/planet-ccrma laptop, but i only use both in
performance and/or recording when i am doing
electronic/outside/avant-garde music. my day job is being a
professional rock musician!
i was teaching electronic music in universities before my band's
reformation. i will eventually go back to that.
all that said: most of my time around computers is either in university
electronic music studios or rock music recording studios, or with other
musicians. the MAJORITY of these people are using mac os x. in the
studios it's about 8 to 1, mac to pc. among younger musicians it's
about 7 to 1. for example, every member of my band owns a mac laptop,
including the tour manager and record company people. our european tour
manager uses a pc laptop.
even our perl-geek webmaster, besides running linux, uses mac os x.
i know very few linux users, and even fewer linux audio users. i
recently did a lecture-presentation at the university of birmingham in
the UK and was willing to set up linux audio boxes for them (but the
hoops the IT department makes one jump through proved too small to get
through!) i am really interested in getting more linux audio into
university electronic music studios, i think that's key to expansion of
the platform.
so back to the topic. at home in my home studio (where we actually make
records!) i have several computers. i have two digidesign interfaces
for mac (one 001 for the desktop, one mbox, that i carry on tour, ever
since they made multi-client drivers for it.) i have one RME multiface
with both pci card (in 2.4ghz planet-ccrma/gentoo box) and pcmcia card
(in sharp mv-12w laptop). i used to use the rme with os x also, but RME
were so snotty on their support forums about mac problems that i almost
gave up entirely on the company. they are so self-righteous! then i
started using the multiface with the linux systems, and once i got it
to work with the laptop, i was happy.
i have had 2 m-audio things, a quattro (never worked right wth
anything) and a firewire 410, which became superfluous, so i sold it.
the advantages to the mbox that i use right now are: multi-client
drivers and preamps built in. the disadvantage to using it is no midi
i/o.
anyway, there's 2 more cents. soon we'll have a whole euro!
_______________________________________________________
Jonathan Segel -- 4014 Brookdale Ave. Oakland, CA 94619
MAGNETIC -- http://www.MagneticMotorworks.com
3:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 13:35 +0100, jonathan segel wrote:
Oh, I disagree... your post is a very valuable POV. Thanks for
expressing it. Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We should try to stay "real"
in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
<snip>
>
> It's also apples and oranges, because the application is different.
> Most Linux is in data centers and ISPs where you might have 50 or
> hundreds in a room. Most MacOS is on the desktop at home.
ok i'm going to add two more cents to this pot, worth exactly that. all that said: most of my time around computers is
either in university
electronic music studios or rock music recording studios, or with other
musicians. the MAJORITY of these people are using mac os x. in the
studios it's about 8 to 1, mac to pc. among younger musicians it's
about 7 to 1. for example, every member of my band owns a mac laptop,
including the tour manager and record company people. our european tour
manager uses a pc laptop.
Though I'm not as "in the know" as I once was... in all my years
watching shows, talking to bands, hanging with "real" musicians, I've
never once come across anyone using linux besides myself for audio.
This is Chicago btw. I've tried to proselytize but to no avail ;-)
<snip>
i am really interested in getting more linux audio
into
university electronic music studios, i think that's key to expansion of
the platform.
I agree. I've participated in some user groups where Pd, Max/MSP, SC3
and other experimental apps were featured... all on mac or pc. People
are surprised to learn there are even such tools to be found on linux
(yes really). It'd be nice if linux could leech further into the halls
of learning.
so back to the topic. at home in my home studio (where
we actually make
records!) i have several computers. i have two digidesign interfaces
for mac (one 001 for the desktop, one mbox, that i carry on tour, ever
since they made multi-client drivers for it.)
The 001 and mbox are pretty much the entry-level standard in the
pro/prosumer market from my experience. Neither one works on linux
afaik.
And ProTools would therefore be the defacto DAW (though Steinberg stuff
probably holds the "bedroom studio" market). When in the studio,
musicians are often presented a hard disk with their "pro-tools session"
on it, in this form it's useless on linux unfortunately.
Hardware and software non-interoperability is probably the #2 reason
(behind the shortage of native audio software) for people NOT switching
to linux.
As a friend recently said; "You can do a hell of a lot more on mac/pc,
but you can do a hell of a lot more for free on linux."
Anyway, the reason I'm responding is to:
1) second the validity of your statements regarding OS representation
(LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
is)
2) raise a question as to how the message can get out that "linux audio
exists"
3) partially answer my own question :P
About #2... Firstly, I know I often need encouragement to actually get
out there to create and/or perform. But actually taking it to the
streets and demonstrating linux audio would surely help spread the word.
Playing out (if that's your thing) is good for you and also good for
"the cause". I mean the more people see linux-laptops making awesome
sound the more interest will follow.
I'm a teacher and I must admit, I do sneak linux into the classroom
often. Hmm... though I get rather low traffic, I think I'll revamp my
website to more prominently feature linux audio.
http://ruinaudio.com
Hmm... I wonder if Tape Op (a great FREE magazine http://tapeop.com/ )
would accept articles about linux.
Anyway, if anyone has any other ideas about how to increase linux-audio
awareness, I'd be interested to hear.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
3:59 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:14:04 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
And ProTools would therefore be the defacto DAW
(though Steinberg stuff
probably holds the "bedroom studio" market). When in the studio,
musicians are often presented a hard disk with their "pro-tools session"
on it, in this form it's useless on linux unfortunately.
<SNIP>
The session file is useless but the wave files work fine with 24-bit
capable tools. That's the state I'm in.
- Mark
5:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:14, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 13:35 +0100, jonathan segel
wrote:
Oh, I disagree... your post is a very valuable POV. Thanks for
expressing it. Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We should try to stay "real"
in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
Ok let's get this straight. ;)
(why do we always underestimate ourselves)
>
> It's also apples and oranges, because the application is different.
> Most Linux is in data centers and ISPs where you might have 50 or
> hundreds in a room. Most MacOS is on the desktop at home.
ok i'm going to add two more cents to this pot, worth exactly that. <snip>
Suppose that each city and perhaps a fairly large town in the US and
Europe has got at least *one* linux audio user.
Likely? I think so :)
How much users would that be? Hundreds? More?
Now let's look at the windows/mac market. Every mac user using his mac
for audio has got an audio device. This could be Presonus, mackie,
apogee, maudio, echo, TC, edirol, digidesign, motu, terratec, metric
halo, egosys, tascam...etc, etc, etc, etc(i got all those from exaclty
one issue of keys, listing through it for 3 minutes ;)
Firewire ist the latest hype, no doubt. Mobile recording, a/d's in
breakout boxes, cool(tm).
So your friends are using a unit from companies listed above or other
companies.
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux audio market. Ask everyone what unit
he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
I think the equation isn't that simple. Numbers will grow. Look at the
d/l or visit rates for linux audio apps. Very interesting market for RME
since it's *dominant* in this new emerging market. If they were more
active they could easily secure their position. Which means cash, more
cash, and more cash.
all that said: most of my time around computers
is either in university
electronic music studios or rock music recording studios, or with other
musicians. the MAJORITY of these people are using mac os x. in the
studios it's about 8 to 1, mac to pc. among younger musicians it's
about 7 to 1. for example, every member of my band owns a mac laptop,
including the tour manager and record company people. our european tour
manager uses a pc laptop.
Though I'm not as "in the know" as I once was... in all my years
watching shows, talking to bands, hanging with "real" musicians, I've
never once come across anyone using linux besides myself for audio.
This is Chicago btw. I've tried to proselytize but to no avail ;-) Anyway, the reason I'm responding is to:
1) second the validity of your statements regarding OS representation
(LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
Marek
6:15 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Monday 29 Nov 2004 23:55, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux audio
market. Ask everyone what
unit he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
No, it's going to be 1/30 RME 1/20 M-Audio, 11/12 "other".
I'd be prepared to bet most Linux audio users are using soundcard audio,
SoundBlaster variants and so on. I reckon they make up a majority even
of the ones who subscribe to LAU.
That said,
Very interesting market
for RME since it's *dominant* in this new emerging market.
[...]
I think I agree with both your statements here. RME and M-Audio are
surely dominant amongst people who thought and spent enough to be using
their cards. And I do believe there's a fairly substantial Linux audio
users' market (if you will) outside the LAU subscriber list.
But that's probably not enough to sustain any hardware company now.
Whether it ever will be is probably up to that company and its like, as
much as it's up to us.
Chris
(LAU [...] sometimes [...] feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
7:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 23:27, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Monday 29 Nov 2004 23:55, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I doubt it. :)
True that almost every newbie comes with a SB card or similar. But those
are not very usable for low latency audio recording(lots of xruns in my
case, and i've seen numerous other user complain about it). These
newbies are then advised to buy an maudio or rme card, depending on the
price range/quality. Basically advertising for free.
An audiophile costs as much as a new SB these days.
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux
audio market. Ask everyone what
unit he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
No, it's going to be 1/30 RME 1/20 M-Audio, 11/12 "other".
I'd be prepared to bet most Linux audio users are using soundcard audio,
SoundBlaster variants and so on. I reckon they make up a majority even
of the ones who subscribe to LAU.
That said,
Agreed. But still if we came up with a number around 1000 or so(which i
believe is likely precisely because of what you said - "a fairly
substantial Linux audio users' market outside the LAU subscriber list"),
i think it would already be an interesting market for a pro-audio
soundcard manufacturer such as RME(higher range) or
Maudio/Egosys(lower-range) simply because the competition ratio is very
low and people would get used to and stick with them in the future if
that the units were high quality which seems to be the case. Don't know
how many units they usually sell but
audioscience had a banner on their site saying they have sold 20000
units so far. We'd need to measure it.
And in case of firewire pro-audio one would just buy a small
egosys/maudio firewire unit for homerecording or a fireface for more
serious work(you can cascade them getting 20,30,40,50(5 units) chans of
analog i/o etc.)
Marek
Very interesting market
for RME since it's *dominant* in this new emerging market.
[...]
I think I agree with both your statements here. RME and M-Audio are
surely dominant amongst people who thought and spent enough to be using
their cards. And I do believe there's a fairly substantial Linux audio
users' market (if you will) outside the LAU subscriber list.
But that's probably not enough to sustain any hardware company now.
Whether it ever will be is probably up to that company and its like, as
much as it's up to us. (LAU [...] sometimes [...] feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
9:42 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Bottom line, these companies are not stupid. They know where the money
is, and it ain't on LAU. If it were, they'd be here too.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:14, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
Come on... reality check. The mail lists for
Avid->DigiDesign->Pro-Tools alone dwarf LAU.
The linux-audio market isn't a fly-fart in sulfur mine to these 2nd tier
companies (m-audio et. al.). They're competing for crumbs from the
giant's (digidesign) lap anyway.
an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We
should try to stay "real"
in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
Ok let's get this straight. ;)
(why do we always underestimate ourselves) Suppose that each city and perhaps a fairly large town
in the US and
Europe has got at least *one* linux audio user.
Likely? I think so :)
How much users would that be? Hundreds? More?
Hundreds. And the money we (LAU's) spend on audio gear in a year per
company wouldn't pay the salary of the person who pushes "send" on the
"we don't plan support" emails for a month.
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux audio
market. Ask everyone what unit
he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
I'd venture to guess that if EVERY LAU signed a petition to support only
one company in return for drivers/support... it'd mean nothing. To be
honest, I'm grateful for any "support" official or otherwise we get.
IMO it's a cheritible act for these profit driven (not meant in a
negative way) manufacturers to spend/risk revenue on what is still
largely a hobby OS (speaking of linux desktop/audio here only).
1) second the
validity of your statements regarding OS representation
(LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
10:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 02:42, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
How many sold units per year do you estimate for a company such as RME
or MAudio? It's not fresh bread, the numbers are pretty low, the prices
pretty high.
http://www.audioscience.com/internet/news/press20000.htm
I don't think so.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Can i see the numbers? :)
Can't tell really but the activity on rme forums is comparable to LAU.
Which would mean that they have 1200 customers. Certainly not, but it's
also not 500.000 customers, at least i doubt it.
Also, it's digidesign. And 200.000 other companies that sell audio hw.
Very tough competition. Compared to linux audio where there's almost no
competition.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:14, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
Come on... reality check. The mail lists for
Avid->DigiDesign->Pro-Tools alone dwarf LAU. an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We
should try to stay "real"
in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
Ok let's get this straight. ;)
(why do we always underestimate ourselves)
The linux-audio market isn't a fly-fart in sulfur mine to these 2nd tier
companies (m-audio et. al.). They're competing for crumbs from the
giant's (digidesign) lap anyway.
This is no evidence to me. That they don't realise it is just their
fault. And it's our fault that we don't realise it too.
Suppose that each city and perhaps a fairly large
town in the US and
Europe has got at least *one* linux audio user.
Likely? I think so :)
How much users would that be? Hundreds? More?
Hundreds. And the money we (LAU's) spend on audio gear in a year per
company wouldn't pay the salary of the person who pushes "send" on the
"we don't plan support" emails for a month. Now let's look at the "tiny" linux
audio market. Ask everyone what unit
he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
I'd venture to guess that if EVERY LAU signed a petition to support only
one company in return for drivers/support... it'd mean nothing. To be
honest, I'm grateful for any "support" official or otherwise we get.
IMO it's a cheritible act for these profit driven (not meant in a
negative way) manufacturers to spend/risk revenue on what is still
largely a hobby OS (speaking of linux desktop/audio here only).
I'm only grateful for the support audioscience is giving and any other
such support.
Bottom line, these companies are not stupid. They
know where the money
is, and it ain't on LAU. If it were, they'd be here too.
As said. No evidence. They would have to show me a linux audio market
survey. Which i bet they don't have at all. They don't even know the
current state of linux audio. They don't give a flying f*.
Marek
10:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:42:32 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the PTLE list for only x86 hardware, which is
probably closer to what 90% of LAU users are trying to do, dwarfs LAU.
Add in Mac PTLE users and it probably doubles or possibly triples.
After that the big boys are incremental. There are certainly fewer of
them, but you can pretty much expect that there are 2 or 3 engineers
at least from every Pro Tools based studio out there, and there are a
lot of Pro Tools based studios.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:14, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
Come on... reality check. The mail lists for
Avid->DigiDesign->Pro-Tools alone dwarf LAU. an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We
should try to stay "real"
in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
Ok let's get this straight. ;)
(why do we always underestimate ourselves)
The linux-audio market isn't a fly-fart in sulfur mine to these 2nd tier
companies (m-audio et. al.). They're competing for crumbs from the
giant's (digidesign) lap anyway.
Bottom line, these companies are not stupid. They know where the money
is, and it ain't on LAU. If it were, they'd be here too.
Yep...however the smart ones look for ways to both incrementally
increase revenue, and then also to create revolutionary changes. I
keep thinking that one of these days Digi will come out with a closed
system that is Linux based and includes the PC itself. Incrementally
it wouldn't cost them all that much to add a PC to some unit like the
002 Rack. Most users would use external audio drives so internal
storage requiremments aren't that high. They'd have control of the OS
and it would be stable.
For the last 6 months PTLE users have been caught in a bind. No PTLE
versions run on XP Service Pack 2 so all PTLE systems have to stick
with a bad version of Windows that isn't getting updates. I'm scared
to do much on the net with my PTLE machine. I don't know why Digi
hasn't fixed this. I guess it's hard. The plugin vendors have told us
their plugins aren't stable on SP2 either, so it's a mess.
But before we totally discount the idea of LAU/Ardour type apps
failing in comparison to Digi I'm reminded of when I wrote a post
there and a couple of guys jumped up and started building Planet
machines to try it out. Problem was it was too hard to build and
Fernando wasn't supporting it yet. Today they would have a much easier
time. For fun I answered a year old question in that thread and popped
it back to the top of the list.
http://duc.digidesign.com
Look at the PTLE on Windows forum.
FYI - There are 48700 registered users of the DigiDesign forums...
- Mark
Suppose that each city and perhaps a fairly large
town in the US and
Europe has got at least *one* linux audio user.
Likely? I think so :)
How much users would that be? Hundreds? More?
Hundreds. And the money we (LAU's) spend on audio gear in a year per
company wouldn't pay the salary of the person who pushes "send" on the
"we don't plan support" emails for a month.
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux
audio market. Ask everyone what unit
he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
I'd venture to guess that if EVERY LAU signed a petition to support only
one company in return for drivers/support... it'd mean nothing. To be
honest, I'm grateful for any "support" official or otherwise we get.
IMO it's a cheritible act for these profit driven (not meant in a
negative way) manufacturers to spend/risk revenue on what is still
largely a hobby OS (speaking of linux desktop/audio here only).
1) second
the validity of your statements regarding OS representation
(LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
30 Nov
30 Nov
2:49 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 18:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
Bottom line, these companies are not stupid. They know where the money
is, and it ain't on LAU. If it were, they'd be here too.
Yep...however the smart ones look for ways to both incrementally
increase revenue, and then also to create revolutionary changes. I
keep thinking that one of these days Digi will come out with a closed
system that is Linux based and includes the PC itself. Incrementally
it wouldn't cost them all that much to add a PC to some unit like the
002 Rack. Most users would use external audio drives so internal
storage requiremments aren't that high. They'd have control of the OS
and it would be stable.
For the last 6 months PTLE users have been caught in a bind. No PTLE
versions run on XP Service Pack 2 so all PTLE systems have to stick
with a bad version of Windows that isn't getting updates. I'm scared
to do much on the net with my PTLE machine. I don't know why Digi
hasn't fixed this. I guess it's hard. The plugin vendors have told us
their plugins aren't stable on SP2 either, so it's a mess.
Same on the OSX world, AFAIK, PT does not run on the latest versions.
-- Fernando
1) second the
validity of your statements regarding OS representation
(LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
12:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On 29 Nov 2004 22:49:02 -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
<nando(a)ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
Yes. I don't mean to imply that Digi is treating PC users any worse
than Mac users. There is a certain parity now between Mac and PC at
Digi. Releases come very much at the same time with very much the same
features. (or problems...)
I was reading the web site last evening when I was looking for how
many Digi forum users there are. (almost 49000 people have signed up!
That's huge!) Looks like they are getting closer. They say they have
an in-house version that's working, so I guess it's getting closer.
BTW - I truly think that in the next 12-24 months Digi will release
PTLE for Linux. If they did they solve the hardware support problem
and have an advantage over anyone using other Linux tools with home
grown Alsa support. That would be pretty cool. If their normal release
policies applied then for $75 I'd have a 3rd OS to run on.
- Mark
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 18:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
For the last 6
months PTLE users have been caught in a bind. No PTLE
versions run on XP Service Pack 2 so all PTLE systems have to stick
with a bad version of Windows that isn't getting updates. I'm scared
to do much on the net with my PTLE machine. I don't know why Digi
hasn't fixed this. I guess it's hard. The plugin vendors have told us
their plugins aren't stable on SP2 either, so it's a mess.
Same on the OSX world, AFAIK, PT does not run on the latest versions.
-- Fernando
1:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 08:10 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
BTW - I truly think that in the next 12-24 months Digi
will release
PTLE for Linux.
Ok, I'll bite :-)
Mark there's just no way it'll happen. Think about how picky Digi is
with hardware AND software (your example about PTLE not working with SP2
and recent OS X). I mean you can count their "recommended systems" on
one hand practically. DigiDesign prides themselves (and their business
model rests on the premise) in the stability and reliablity of their
software/hardware. They'd never want to associate themselves with
something so amorphous and widely varried as linux, with utter certainty
I'll say they'd never support it.
IMHO *IF* Digi ever made an entry in the linux world they'd *only* do it
by picking *one* distro to support and only that distro. What distro
would/could that be? As of now there's no distro that'll do low latency
audio out of the box. They'll not risk their reputation on a "community
based" distro, they'd want corporate. So that leaves? RH Suse? Sorry
hardly enough of a customer base in either.
I could one day, maybe, see them floating "PT-free" out there for
linux... maybe... but a full blown PTLE release? I won't say "never"
but I'll confidently say not for a long long long long time and maybe
never.
If they did they solve the hardware support problem
and have an advantage over anyone using other Linux tools with home
grown Alsa support. That would be pretty cool. If their normal release
policies applied then for $75 I'd have a 3rd OS to run on.
Closed binary only Alsa support for the DD hardware would have to spring
fully formed from Avid, it's just not going to happen. I mean if
there's a company out there that's worse than Apple about tying hardware
and software... it's gotta be DigiDesign. Sorry, though I'd like to see
it (no offense ardour), I'm not going to hold my breath.
I think it was you who suggested a "DigiDesign Distro" bundled with
PTLE?
Ok, here's the most remotely possible solution... a "Powerd by linux &
DigiDesign Console [tm]" again, hardware and software locked, and that'd
be a high-end solution...
Sorry, but PT and Linux just ain't going to happen. All MHO of course.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
1:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:17:31 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Don't! 1-2 years and you'll be very blue. (Literally!) ;-)
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 08:10 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
:-) :-)
BTW - I truly think that in the next 12-24 months
Digi will release
PTLE for Linux.
Ok, I'll bite :-)
Mark there's just no way it'll happen. Think about how picky Digi is
with hardware AND software (your example about PTLE not working with SP2
and recent OS X). I mean you can count their "recommended systems" on
one hand practically. DigiDesign prides themselves (and their business
model rests on the premise) in the stability and reliablity of their
software/hardware. They'd never want to associate themselves with
something so amorphous and widely varried as linux, with utter certainty
I'll say they'd never support it.
I agree if you only think Linux is what we deal with - source code,
any old distro, etc.
IMHO *IF* Digi ever made an entry in the linux world they'd *only* do it
by picking *one* distro to support and only that distro. What distro
would/could that be? As of now there's no distro that'll do low latency
audio out of the box. They'll not risk their reputation on a "community
based" distro, they'd want corporate. So that leaves? RH Suse? Sorry
hardly enough of a customer base in either.
I agree that they will pick a distro. I think I'll guess today it's
Fedora as they'll wake up one day and see what Fernando supplies and
rally around that.
As for their recommended systems, let's jsut say that I think they'll
have a 'recommended distro' and only support that. Other distro folks
support themselves. However, think of what it would mean to Digi's
PC/Mac customers to simply be told 'If you want to run this under
Linux the use Fedora, PlanetCCRMA and our code. It works. Anything
else and your on your own.' I think that will be compelling and people
who aren't so 'distro religious' as many here would likely try it out.
No more virus problems. No problems with networking, etc. Biggest
question in my mind would be Waves and other plugin vendors really
coming along, but that could happen if there are enough Digi users
requesting it over time. Maybe Digi writes an RTAS/LADSPA wrapper and
lets people use LADSPA plugins as a default to start. For many, many
people (me included) we hardly use plugins and it doesn't matter that
much.
People everywhere are at least tired of Windows and looking for
alternatives. My 76 year old dad got sick of Windows and switched to
Linux a year ago. He hasn't run windows since. For Christ's sake,
yesterday I uninstalled GigaSampler and now Win ME won't even boot. Go
figure? Who knows what folks in studios are putting up with.
I think there's a good chance but I have no info. Don't read me wrong
on that account.
I could one day, maybe, see them floating "PT-free" out there for
linux... maybe... but a full blown PTLE release? I won't say "never"
but I'll confidently say not for a long long long long time and maybe
never.
No - I don't see that. Digi is far and away a hardware company. They
make all their money selling hardware and give the software away for
free. PT-free was an entry version, unsupported even under Windows,
and just a way to get people hooked so they would eventually buy
hardware. It's a good model for them. They have become successful
doing it. No monopolies - just good hard work running a good
business. They won't release PT-free for Linux unless they are serious
about backing it up with a product that will make them money.
If they did they solve the hardware support
problem
and have an advantage over anyone using other Linux tools with home
grown Alsa support. That would be pretty cool. If their normal release
policies applied then for $75 I'd have a 3rd OS to run on.
Closed binary only Alsa support for the DD hardware would have to spring
fully formed from Avid, it's just not going to happen. I mean if
there's a company out there that's worse than Apple about tying hardware
and software... it's gotta be DigiDesign. Sorry, though I'd like to see
it (no offense ardour), I'm not going to hold my breath.
I think it was you who suggested a "DigiDesign Distro" bundled with
PTLE?
Sure - why not? Live CDs are easy technology now. They could supply a
Knoppix like, boot from CD, install the Digi distro and PTLE in one
step, and off their Linux users go.
Ok, here's the most remotely possible solution... a "Powerd by linux &
DigiDesign Console [tm]" again, hardware and software locked, and that'd
be a high-end solution...
Sorry, but PT and Linux just ain't going to happen. All MHO of course.
Hey, you and I have more similar views than I might have thought when
I read the first line of your response. None of this is a CIA slam
dunk. ;-)
- Mark
2:19 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re:Behringer etc.]
People everywhere are at least tired of Windows and
looking for
alternatives. My 76 year old dad got sick of Windows and switched to
Linux a year ago. He hasn't run windows since. For Christ's sake,
yesterday I uninstalled GigaSampler and now Win ME won't even boot. Go
figure? Who knows what folks in studios are putting up with.
I'll tell ya - some studios put up with lots - some waste a million dollars
on a euphonix console that can't sync - but mainly, what I see is studios go
ahead and spend 50 grand on a protools rig with hardware so badass that they
know it'll be stable - also i've seen fairlight systems in places and maybe
some cubase - but if it ain't stable, it don't get used, basically. and i
mean stable as a mufucka. we all kind of got burned out by the ADAT
situation and now nobody wants to mess around - that's what it looks like
from my point of view anyway
i always bring this up when i can cuz linux has a lot of work to do to get
really acceptable in that regard
2:23 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re:Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:19:55 -0600, Aaron Trumm <aaron(a)nquit.com> wrote:
Very true. Few people want to crash systems when Steven and Joe are in
their studio. they never recover from problems like that.
But I think Linux itself is very stable, and I think Pro Tools is
fairly stable. What's hard for most people to set up is Alsa. Digi
could do that for their hardware only and they'd have something that
would likely be pretty good from the start.
People
everywhere are at least tired of Windows and looking for
alternatives. My 76 year old dad got sick of Windows and switched to
Linux a year ago. He hasn't run windows since. For Christ's sake,
yesterday I uninstalled GigaSampler and now Win ME won't even boot. Go
figure? Who knows what folks in studios are putting up with.
I'll tell ya - some studios put up with lots - some waste a million dollars
on a euphonix console that can't sync - but mainly, what I see is studios go
ahead and spend 50 grand on a protools rig with hardware so badass that they
know it'll be stable - also i've seen fairlight systems in places and maybe
some cubase - but if it ain't stable, it don't get used, basically. and i
mean stable as a mufucka. we all kind of got burned out by the ADAT
situation and now nobody wants to mess around - that's what it looks like
from my point of view anyway
i always bring this up when i can cuz linux has a lot of work to do to get
really acceptable in that regard
1 Dec
1 Dec
10:46 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 17:17, Ryan Gallagher was like:
As of now there's no distro that'll do low
latency
audio out of the box.
Apart from AGNULA/DeMuDi ;-)
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
30 Nov
30 Nov
6:21 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 03:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:42:32 -0600, Ryan Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
So how big would the number of sold units be? I believe that a *lot* of
those customers had at least one problem, registered and asked on their
forums. Dobule or triple the number.
The samller card manufacturers usually deal with smaller numbers.
1000 and growing is a very interesting number to me.
*sigh* Wish i was a card manufacturer.
Marek
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the PTLE list for only x86 hardware, which is
probably closer to what 90% of LAU users are trying to do, dwarfs LAU.
Add in Mac PTLE users and it probably doubles or possibly triples.
After that the big boys are incremental. There are certainly fewer of
them, but you can pretty much expect that there are 2 or 3 engineers
at least from every Pro Tools based studio out there, and there are a
lot of Pro Tools based studios.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:14, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
Come on... reality check. The mail lists for
Avid->DigiDesign->Pro-Tools alone dwarf LAU. an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We
should try to stay "real"
in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
Ok let's get this straight. ;)
(why do we always underestimate ourselves)
The linux-audio market isn't a fly-fart in sulfur mine to these 2nd tier
companies (m-audio et. al.). They're competing for crumbs from the
giant's (digidesign) lap anyway.
Bottom line, these companies are not stupid. They know where the money
is, and it ain't on LAU. If it were, they'd be here too.
Yep...however the smart ones look for ways to both incrementally
increase revenue, and then also to create revolutionary changes. I
keep thinking that one of these days Digi will come out with a closed
system that is Linux based and includes the PC itself. Incrementally
it wouldn't cost them all that much to add a PC to some unit like the
002 Rack. Most users would use external audio drives so internal
storage requiremments aren't that high. They'd have control of the OS
and it would be stable.
For the last 6 months PTLE users have been caught in a bind. No PTLE
versions run on XP Service Pack 2 so all PTLE systems have to stick
with a bad version of Windows that isn't getting updates. I'm scared
to do much on the net with my PTLE machine. I don't know why Digi
hasn't fixed this. I guess it's hard. The plugin vendors have told us
their plugins aren't stable on SP2 either, so it's a mess.
But before we totally discount the idea of LAU/Ardour type apps
failing in comparison to Digi I'm reminded of when I wrote a post
there and a couple of guys jumped up and started building Planet
machines to try it out. Problem was it was too hard to build and
Fernando wasn't supporting it yet. Today they would have a much easier
time. For fun I answered a year old question in that thread and popped
it back to the top of the list.
http://duc.digidesign.com
Look at the PTLE on Windows forum.
FYI - There are 48700 registered users of the DigiDesign forums... Suppose that each city and perhaps a fairly large
town in the US and
Europe has got at least *one* linux audio user.
Likely? I think so :)
How much users would that be? Hundreds? More?
Hundreds. And the money we (LAU's) spend on audio gear in a year per
company wouldn't pay the salary of the person who pushes "send" on the
"we don't plan support" emails for a month.
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux
audio market. Ask everyone what unit
he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
I'd venture to guess that if EVERY LAU signed a petition to support only
one company in return for drivers/support... it'd mean nothing. To be
honest, I'm grateful for any "support" official or otherwise we get.
IMO it's a cheritible act for these profit driven (not meant in a
negative way) manufacturers to spend/risk revenue on what is still
largely a hobby OS (speaking of linux desktop/audio here only).
1) second
the validity of your statements regarding OS representation
(LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
6:41 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:20, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 03:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
BTW, let's compare:
Digi002 fw interface 8 analog i/o
ProTools recording sw, plugin bundle, and perhaps other software tools
1199euro
Fireface, 10 analog i/o
no software (usually worth another 1000 euro)
1300euro
No wonder there's 50.000 users on their forums.
Marek
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:42:32 -0600, Ryan
Gallagher
<ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
So how big would the number of sold units be? I believe that a *lot* of
those customers had at least one problem, registered and asked on their
forums. Dobule or triple the number.
The samller card manufacturers usually deal with smaller numbers.
1000 and growing is a very interesting number to me.
*sigh* Wish i was a card manufacturer. On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:55 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the PTLE list for only x86 hardware, which is
probably closer to what 90% of LAU users are trying to do, dwarfs LAU.
Add in Mac PTLE users and it probably doubles or possibly triples.
After that the big boys are incremental. There are certainly fewer of
them, but you can pretty much expect that there are 2 or 3 engineers
at least from every Pro Tools based studio out there, and there are a
lot of Pro Tools based studios.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:14, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Linux users are still a minority and linux audio users
> an even smaller one, downright miniscule. We should try to stay "real"
> in estimating our tiny presence in this huge industry.
Ok let's get this straight. ;)
(why do we always underestimate ourselves)
Come on... reality check. The mail lists for
Avid->DigiDesign->Pro-Tools alone dwarf LAU.
The linux-audio market isn't a fly-fart in sulfur mine to these 2nd tier
companies (m-audio et. al.). They're competing for crumbs from the
giant's (digidesign) lap anyway.
Yep...however the smart ones look for ways to both incrementally
increase revenue, and then also to create revolutionary changes. I
keep thinking that one of these days Digi will come out with a closed
system that is Linux based and includes the PC itself. Incrementally
it wouldn't cost them all that much to add a PC to some unit like the
002 Rack. Most users would use external audio drives so internal
storage requiremments aren't that high. They'd have control of the OS
and it would be stable.
For the last 6 months PTLE users have been caught in a bind. No PTLE
versions run on XP Service Pack 2 so all PTLE systems have to stick
with a bad version of Windows that isn't getting updates. I'm scared
to do much on the net with my PTLE machine. I don't know why Digi
hasn't fixed this. I guess it's hard. The plugin vendors have told us
their plugins aren't stable on SP2 either, so it's a mess.
But before we totally discount the idea of LAU/Ardour type apps
failing in comparison to Digi I'm reminded of when I wrote a post
there and a couple of guys jumped up and started building Planet
machines to try it out. Problem was it was too hard to build and
Fernando wasn't supporting it yet. Today they would have a much easier
time. For fun I answered a year old question in that thread and popped
it back to the top of the list.
http://duc.digidesign.com
Look at the PTLE on Windows forum.
FYI - There are 48700 registered users of the DigiDesign forums... Suppose that each city and perhaps a fairly large
town in the US and
Europe has got at least *one* linux audio user.
Likely? I think so :)
How much users would that be? Hundreds? More?
Hundreds. And the money we (LAU's) spend on audio gear in a year per
company wouldn't pay the salary of the person who pushes "send" on the
"we don't plan support" emails for a month.
Now let's look at the "tiny" linux
audio market. Ask everyone what unit
he has got. I bet it's going to be 2/3rd RME 1/3 Maudio.
I'd venture to guess that if EVERY LAU signed a petition to support only
one company in return for drivers/support... it'd mean nothing. To be
honest, I'm grateful for any "support" official or otherwise we get.
IMO it's a cheritible act for these profit driven (not meant in a
negative way) manufacturers to spend/risk revenue on what is still
largely a hobby OS (speaking of linux desktop/audio here only).
> 1) second the validity of your statements
regarding OS representation
> (LAU is a pretty insular community, sometimes it feels bigger than it
> is)
Sadly it's exactly the opposite.
Bottom line, these companies are not stupid. They know where the money
is, and it ain't on LAU. If it were, they'd be here too.
29 Nov
29 Nov
7:23 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:14, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
Hmm... I wonder if Tape Op (a great FREE magazine
http://tapeop.com/ )
would accept articles about linux.
TapeOp would probably be glad to run an article. Definitely a great
magazine!
Jan
11:42 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 17:43 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:14, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
Yes it is... and did I mention it's FREE! Maybe writing a tape op
article would be a good motivator for me to hone my word-skillz.
Btw, another point in this discussion - linux audio users will be better
at explaining preaching the potential of linux IF they are knowledgeable
about other platforms and current thinking in pro audio (not suggesting
some are not already "in the know").
If we really want to impress the "other team" we need to have knowledge
of both worlds, and admit that it's basically their (win/mac) game...
Tape Op is an incredible source of information, oh did I mention it's
FREE? Every LAU should have a subscription, guys, it's uber-geek.
-ry
--
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net>
Hmm... I wonder if Tape Op (a great FREE magazine
http://tapeop.com/ )
would accept articles about linux.
TapeOp would probably be glad to run an article. Definitely a great
magazine!
Jan 
30 Nov
30 Nov
12:37 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Unfortunately its not free for me :(
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 21:42 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 17:43 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
--
Dan Harper
http://danharper.org
--- Enhancing the Linux desktop for desktop users ---
--- http://danharper.org/linuxdesktopblog/ ---
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:14, Ryan Gallagher
wrote:
Yes it is... and did I mention it's FREE! Maybe writing a tape op
article would be a good motivator for me to hone my word-skillz.
Btw, another point in this discussion - linux audio users will be better
at explaining preaching the potential of linux IF they are knowledgeable
about other platforms and current thinking in pro audio (not suggesting
some are not already "in the know").
If we really want to impress the "other team" we need to have knowledge
of both worlds, and admit that it's basically their (win/mac) game...
Tape Op is an incredible source of information, oh did I mention it's
FREE? Every LAU should have a subscription, guys, it's uber-geek.
-ry
Hmm... I wonder if Tape Op (a great FREE magazine
http://tapeop.com/ )
would accept articles about linux.
TapeOp would probably be glad to run an article. Definitely a great
magazine!
Jan
8:16 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Hallo,
Dan Harper hat gesagt: // Dan Harper wrote:
Unfortunately its not free for me :(
They should do a pdf-version for us overseaers.
TapeOp looks like a nice magazine. However from glimpsing over their
webpage and from reading the term "pro audio" here, it always seems to
involve some kind of recording business. To me, "pro audio" is much
more than just mastering and recording. A Pro is someone, who makes a
living out of something. Composers, who use Linux, like Orm Finnendahl
or Fernando, are as much Pro Linux Audio as R Parker is, as are
video/sound artists using Pd on Linux etc. There already are quite a
lot of people doing such stuff on Linux using free software.
To me people sometimes seem to put too much emphasis on recording
applications, which actually is only a part of what makes Linux Audio
tick.
I would even say, that more people are making a living from Linux
Audio currently, who are not doing studio work with it at all. An
example would be the IEM in Graz, a university institute which also is
creating Pd environments to be used in performances of modern music
and operas in Austria and elsewhere. They are *very* professional in
their kind of business.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
10:05 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:16:23 +0100
Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
TapeOp looks like a nice magazine. However from
glimpsing over their
webpage and from reading the term "pro audio" here, it always seems to
involve some kind of recording business.
A lot of what they do at TapeOp is geared to people who do this for a
living, but it's almost always from a ground-up approach. They interview
a lot of small studio owners who started recording with a Fostex 4-track
and just kept going, and they're slanted towards people trying to do this
onthe cheap. (Unlike, say, Mix.)
They occasionally have DIY articles (this month has a mod for Oktava
ribbon mics), and drool over the same unattainable gear as the rest
of us :)
Sure, they're focusing on people doing this for a living, but it gives
me a chance to find out what people who know more about this stuff than
I do handle things. I've learned how to record drums with 3 mics,
how to mic a guitar amp, and how to deal with click tracks. Mix would
never deign to stoop to that level. (I've always thought that Mix
should have a note on the cover "You must have 24 channels or more to
buy this magazine.")
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
10:20 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Hallo,
Joe Hartley hat gesagt: // Joe Hartley wrote:
A lot of what they do at TapeOp is geared to people
who do this for a
living,
Where "this" means recording??
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
11:25 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Joe Hartley hat gesagt: // Joe Hartley wrote:
Well, yeah, "tape" is in the name for a reason.
I haven't seen in a while but in the early days they had a definite
pro-analog slant.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
A lot of what they do at TapeOp is geared to
people who do this for a
living,
Where "this" means recording??
10:46 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 06:16, Frank Barknecht wrote:
TapeOp looks like a nice magazine. However from
glimpsing over their
webpage and from reading the term "pro audio" here, it always seems to
involve some kind of recording business. To me, "pro audio" is much
more than just mastering and recording. A Pro is someone, who makes a
living out of something. Composers, who use Linux, like Orm Finnendahl
or Fernando, are as much Pro Linux Audio as R Parker is, as are
video/sound artists using Pd on Linux etc. There already are quite a
lot of people doing such stuff on Linux using free software.
That's why it's called TapeOp (the guy that runs the analog tape machine
in the recording/mastering studio). It's not about all pro audio,
mostly just recording and mastering.
Jan
12:57 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Hallo,
Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote:
That's why it's called TapeOp (the guy that
runs the analog tape machine
in the recording/mastering studio). It's not about all pro audio,
mostly just recording and mastering.
Yeah, no problem with that. My rant that pro audio not equals
recording was more trying to get this fact remembered. I sometimes
fear, that people like me, who almost never use Ardour, might feel
shut out of the "pro audio" realm, just because we don't record and
master anything.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
1:34 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 10:57, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote:
I see what you mean. We do tend to forget that sometimes. Some of the
best music that was posted last week was not done with conventional
instruments.
Jan
That's why it's called TapeOp (the guy
that runs the analog tape machine
in the recording/mastering studio). It's not about all pro audio,
mostly just recording and mastering.
Yeah, no problem with that. My rant that pro audio not equals
recording was more trying to get this fact remembered. I sometimes
fear, that people like me, who almost never use Ardour, might feel
shut out of the "pro audio" realm, just because we don't record and
master anything.
3:14 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Hi,
--- Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
Hallo,
Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote:
There is existing nomenclature and the phrase "pro
audio" defines audio engineering, sound design, etc.
To confuse matters, the term "pro" is used to imply
something about quality of product and subsequently
becomes used as a qualifier to describe many things.
In my opinion audio engineering is the discipline of
processing sound to create a desired end product which
isn't always musical.
I would suggest that using synthesis tools is foremost
an act of sound design. That is to create or
manufacture sounds. The discipline is distinct from
audio engineering.
Identifying or acknowleding a distinction between
these two disciplines leaves the misuse of the term
"pro" but addressing that problem is almost a
distraction from what Frank is expressing:
I sometimes
That's why it's called TapeOp (the guy
that runs
the analog tape machine
in the recording/mastering studio). It's not
about all pro audio,
mostly just recording and mastering.
Yeah, no problem with that. My rant that pro audio
not equals
recording was more trying to get this fact
remembered. fear, that people like me, who almost never use
Ardour, might feel
shut out of the "pro audio" realm, just because we
don't record and
master anything.
When I think of synthesis and sound design in Linux
Audio the person that comes to my mind is Frank
Barknecht. I don't really know what Frank does with
his "sounds" but I know some of his work is musical
and consequently requires audio engineering. I'm
trying to be diplomatic by acknowleding distincts
between equally important disciplines but I'm just a
dipshit.
We have so many challanges in defining nomenclature
and using language that it's almost impossible to
satisfy all the equally important interests. I am
hesitant to send this response because my definitions
are wrought with inaccuracies but I'm going to because
I want sound designers, musicians, application
programmers and everyone else to know that I love what
each of us does. The importance of each discipline is
not lost on me and if it is, I am an uninspired
dullard.
I really need to shutup and play the drums. You know
how you can tell if the stage isn't level? The drummer
will drool more from one side of his mouth than the
other. Why did I just hurt myself?
ron
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _
______footils.org__
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
7:24 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Hallo,
R Parker hat gesagt: // R Parker wrote:
There is existing nomenclature and the phrase
"pro
audio" defines audio engineering, sound design, etc.
To confuse matters, the term "pro" is used to imply
something about quality of product and subsequently
becomes used as a qualifier to describe many things.
Hmm, than maybe it's indeed just a matter of how this term is
generally used. I admit, that I approach it very naively by just
looking at the meaning of both single words, "pro" and "audio", but
if
"pro audio" indeed is meant to describe something different from
"sound design" (which also is a word combination, that could mean
anything, if one is honest) then I guess I will just (have to) accept
that nomenclature. Which isn't really a big problem for me, to make
that clear. I just would like to point out, that there are other
"pros" than just the "real" pro audio people, and that they have as
high, but a bit different, needs regarding quality of soft- and
hardware, as the engineers.
When I think of synthesis and sound design in Linux
Audio the person that comes to my mind is Frank
Barknecht.
/me blushes ;)
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
7:36 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:23 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I think it's a bit different in the computer world where "pro audio" is
used to mean the use of a computer for more serious applications than
system sounds and AV playback, which could be anything from softsynths
or live effects processing to the traditional meaning of the term.
It agree that it would be nice if we had a better term for this.
Lee
There is
existing nomenclature and the phrase "pro
audio" defines audio engineering, sound design, etc.
To confuse matters, the term "pro" is used to imply
something about quality of product and subsequently
becomes used as a qualifier to describe many things.
Hmm, than maybe it's indeed just a matter of how this term is
generally used.
7:57 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Hallo,
Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
I think it's a bit different in the computer world
where "pro audio" is
used to mean the use of a computer for more serious applications than
system sounds and AV playback, which could be anything from softsynths
or live effects processing to the traditional meaning of the term.
It agree that it would be nice if we had a better term for this.
What about if we here and now invent the term "pro linux audio" and
define it to include all of the above?! ;)
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
1 Dec
1 Dec
1:23 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: pro-audio knowledge
Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> writes:
Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
What about if we here and now invent the term "pro linux audio" and
define it to include all of the above?! ;)
I've always hated the word "pro", in almost context it has no real
meaning, just marketing sizzle.
But, that would reduce your suggestion to just "linux audio", which we
already have. :-)
--
joq
11:06 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: pro-audio knowledge
Last Wednesday 01 December 2004 05:23, Jack O'Quin was like:
Job Done then ;-)
I agree this 'pro' term is nonsense. 'Professional' means you do it for a
living, people wrongly attach some judgement of quality to that. Being an
amateur means doing it for the love of it, which is a noble thing.
I think that's all of us isn't it?
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
Lee Revell hat
gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
What about if we here and now invent the term "pro linux audio" and
define it to include all of the above?! ;)
I've always hated the word "pro", in almost context it has no real
meaning, just marketing sizzle.
But, that would reduce your suggestion to just "linux audio", which we
already have. :-)
5:59 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: pro-audio knowledge
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 09:06, tim hall wrote:
Last Wednesday 01 December 2004 05:23, Jack O'Quin
was like:
Job Done then ;-)
I agree this 'pro' term is nonsense. 'Professional' means you do it for a
living, people wrongly attach some judgement of quality to that. Being an
amateur means doing it for the love of it, which is a noble thing.
I think that's all of us isn't it?
Not for a living, just for money, although I do tend to agree that your
definition makes more sense. College athletes in the US are considered
professional and barred from NCAA competition if they are paid for
competing. The judgment of quality is that the product is supposed to
be good enough for professional use - which may or may not be the case.
Jan
Lee
Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
What about if we here and now invent the term "pro linux audio" and
define it to include all of the above?! ;)
I've always hated the word "pro", in almost context it has no real
meaning, just marketing sizzle.
But, that would reduce your suggestion to just "linux audio", which we
already have. :-)
2 Dec
2 Dec
7:49 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: pro-audio knowledge
Last Wednesday 01 December 2004 22:19, Jan Depner was like:
Point taken.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
I agree this
'pro' term is nonsense. 'Professional' means you do it for a
living, people wrongly attach some judgement of quality to that. Being an
amateur means doing it for the love of it, which is a noble thing.
I think that's all of us isn't it?
Not for a living, just for money, although I do tend to agree that
your definition makes more sense. College athletes in the US are
considered professional and barred from NCAA competition if they are paid
for competing. The judgment of quality is that the product is supposed to
be good enough for professional use - which may or may not be the case. 
30 Nov
30 Nov
11:07 p.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 02:14 pm, R Parker wrote:
-snip-
I really need to shutup and play the drums. You know
how you can tell if the stage isn't level? The drummer
will drool more from one side of his mouth than the
other. Why did I just hurt myself?
ron
I heard about that gig where you locked the keys in the car
and had to call the fire brigade to get the bass player out ;)
1 Dec
1 Dec
10:58 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
Last Tuesday 30 November 2004 16:57, Frank Barknecht was like:
Yeah, no problem with that. My rant that pro audio not
equals
recording was more trying to get this fact remembered. I sometimes
fear, that people like me, who almost never use Ardour, might feel
shut out of the "pro audio" realm, just because we don't record and
master anything.
Pro-audio is just one proving ground.
Where GNU/Linux could really clean up is in the home studio market.
A much easier target altogether.
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
30 Nov
30 Nov
7:24 a.m.
New subject: pro-audio knowledge and the linux cause [Re: [linux-audio-user] Preach it! [was: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Behringer etc.]]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:42:27 -0600
Ryan Gallagher <ruinaudio(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Tape Op is an incredible source of information, oh did
I mention it's
FREE? Every LAU should have a subscription, guys, it's uber-geek.
This is absolutely true - I love this magazine. BTW, it was the first
place I ever heard of the MAudio Delta series of sound cards. They
loved 'em!
I've been thinking of writing an article about my Linux studio as well,
but have been amazed at how strong a force inertia is.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
29 Nov
29 Nov
4:35 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] cross-platform [was: Behringer etc.]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 13:35 +0100, jonathan segel wrote:
first off, i use os x more than i use linux. this is
because i carry a
powerbook on tour with me and perform with it every night. when i can i
also carry my sharp/planet-ccrma laptop
How do you transfer data between the different platforms?
i.e.: projects from Rosegarden to ... (your Mac sequencer), or audio
tracks between Ardour and ... (corresponding Mac thing), etc.
The common denominator would be:
- plain MIDI files for MIDI information
- WAV files for audio tracks
But i'm curious what is your way to deal with this issue.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
28 Nov
28 Nov
3:50 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:03 +0000, tim hall wrote:
It means that the drivers can't be bundled with
distros and we won't be able
to provide users & developers with technical support, which is a great shame.
Fine with me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right?
OK, _very_ few people are using firewire technology
for music, up till now I'd
considered it the preserve of mac/motu users.
Dude, there are a _lot_ of mac/motu users...
Lee
4:06 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:50:27 -0500, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
Damn straight, and 1394 is getting much more air time in studios
because it's easier to set up a network and move devices around as the
need arises.
So far we're only talking 1394a, but 1394b support is coming also and
this will bring more devices and more power as there is now enough
bandwidth to distribute processing power outside the computer. No
longer does it have to be a card inside the box to get DSP power...
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:03 +0000, tim hall wrote:
Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or
Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect
them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on
Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that
this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and
wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another
Windows box.
It means that the drivers can't be bundled
with distros and we won't be able
to provide users & developers with technical support, which is a great shame.
Fine with me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right? OK, _very_ few people are using firewire
technology for music, up till now I'd
considered it the preserve of mac/motu users.
Dude, there are a _lot_ of mac/motu users...
4:20 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't
release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable
quality and the same support as the Windows driver.
Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Lee
Fine with me.
If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right?
Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or
Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect
them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on
Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that
this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and
wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another
Windows box.
4:31 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:20:33 -0500, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't
release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable
quality and the same support as the Windows driver.
Sure, I get it. However I think you and plug in a close source RME
card driver and happily use it if it was available. I think Marek,
Frank and others do not feel this way. I had no second thoughts about
putting an NVidia controller in my dad's Linux box even though I used
ATI up until then. My experience using both is no that different, but
for me it's not political.
Am I wrong when I think this desire is particularly European in
nature? I'm so Open Market driven, especially when it comes to
technology, that I hardly seem to understand this oter POV. However, I
am interested.
Fine with
me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right?
Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or
Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect
them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on
Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that
this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and
wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another
Windows box.
Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Darn straight. However how did Marek end up being an RME customer when
there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under
Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be? In my case I Was
told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the
DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took
about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't
work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this
device and in this position?
I somehow don't think this is RME's fault...
- Mark
7:26 p.m.
New subject: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas
wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My
fault.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:20:33 -0500, Lee Revell
<rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP
because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver
for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to
eternity.
There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People
just don't shout too loud. :)
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht
wrote:
Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't
release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable
quality and the same support as the Windows driver.
Sure, I get it. However I think you and plug in a close source RME
card driver and happily use it if it was available. I think Marek,
Frank and others do not feel this way. I had no second thoughts about
putting an NVidia controller in my dad's Linux box even though I used
ATI up until then. My experience using both is no that different, but
for me it's not political.
Am I wrong when I think this desire is particularly European in
nature? I'm so Open Market driven, especially when it comes to
technology, that I hardly seem to understand this oter POV. However, I
am interested. Fine with
me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right?
Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or
Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect
them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on
Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that
this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and
wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another
Windows box.
Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Darn straight. However how did Marek end up being an RME customer when
there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under
Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be? In my case I Was
told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the
DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took
about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't
work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this
device and in this position?
I somehow don't think this is RME's fault...
If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly
contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you
aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming
that they do support alsa is just plain unfair.
Marek
7:58 p.m.
New subject: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:25:09 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
And I am very sorry about that. It is a disappointment I'm sure.
You're a long ways away. If it was more practical I'd probably buy the
unit from you. I have uses. I'm sure others will too. You'll sell it
and get good money. Chalk the loss up to learning and
remember..."Trust, but verify".
???? RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things. It was Linux developers telling me it
woul dbe OK to buy it as they would support it. (Not Thomas - others)
However it was Linux USERS telling me to be careful and maybe not buy
it. They had been through, I think, what I went through 2-3 years ago,
and what you are going through now. Hardware support under Linux is
hit and miss.
Without Thomas's help I would have been completely dead. He did a
stellar job with the information he was given. I personalyl think that
information was incomplete, and intentionally so from RME, but I
cannot prove that. All we know is tht the HDSP 9652 did not work
completely as their info said, and that we were not given at that time
and info explaining failures caused by firmware updates to the card.
So, I think the HDSP 9652 worked because it was close to the Digiface
and not specifically because RME wanted it to work under Linux.
Anyway, enough! I give! You win! ;-) I just wanna have a drink now!
- Mark
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP
because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver
for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to
eternity.
There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People
just don't shout too loud. :)
Fair enough. There are companies here in Silicon Valley that take over
'end of life' chip designs and manufacturer them for a while to help
customers, but there isn't much money in it most of the time, just as
there is probably no financial reason for Korg to support that card. I
didn't like it when DigiDesign said they weren't going to continue to
support the 001 forever and I was forced into buying an 002 or going
away from Windows. Unortunately there was no other platform that
maintained my music investment as well so I stuck with Digi.
That's the nature of technology. It gets outdated. Not too many
companies making buggy whips anymore either...
However how
did Marek end up being an RME customer when
there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under
Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be?
Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas
wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My
fault. In my case I Was
told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the
DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took
about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't
work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this
device and in this position?
I somehow don't think this is RME's fault...
If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly
contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you
aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming
that they do support alsa is just plain unfair.
8:20 p.m.
New subject: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:58, Mark Knecht wrote:
???? RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things.
Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response:
"> [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only
excluded product is the Fireface."
Marek
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:25:09 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
And I am very sorry about that.
You don't have to be.
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP
because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver
for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to
eternity.
There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People
just don't shout too loud. :)
Fair enough. There are companies here in Silicon Valley that take over
'end of life' chip designs and manufacturer them for a while to help
customers, but there isn't much money in it most of the time, just as
there is probably no financial reason for Korg to support that card. I
didn't like it when DigiDesign said they weren't going to continue to
support the 001 forever and I was forced into buying an 002 or going
away from Windows. Unortunately there was no other platform that
maintained my music investment as well so I stuck with Digi.
That's the nature of technology. It gets outdated. Not too many
companies making buggy whips anymore either...
However
how did Marek end up being an RME customer when
there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under
Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be?
Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas
wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My
fault. It is a disappointment I'm sure.
You're a long ways away. If it was more practical I'd probably buy the
unit from you. I have uses. I'm sure others will too. You'll sell it
and get good money. Chalk the loss up to learning and
remember..."Trust, but verify".
Agreed. It was a lesson to learn. Thanks for your 'heads up' :)
In my case I Was
told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the
DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took
about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't
work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this
device and in this position?
I somehow don't think this is RME's fault...
If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly
contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you
aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming
that they do support alsa is just plain unfair.
8:32 p.m.
New subject: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:19:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
Well, I don't know exactly what you're calling BS but for clarity
their brand of support for the other devices/cards is to provide
technical information and not actually drivers. Clearly they have
something here that they want to protect or they wouldn't have a
reason to do otherwise. However, it's no different than my Pro Tools
1394 hardware. Digi has never released info on how to talk to the box
so I'll never be able to use it under Linux. Only difference is that
they've never released info on anything so this is not a change. That
change is what's hurting you.
And I am sorry. I really am. I don't like to see anyone go through
what I went through. My input, should you care to take it, would be to
put the card on EBay today and move forward ASAP. I think with this
sort of a problem in front of you it won't get better quickly and I
don't want you cursing your PC and not being able to do audio work
like I did for 6-8 months. I was miserable. Been there, done that,
hoping you won't be as stubborn as I was.
???? RME never
'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things.
Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response:
"> [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only
excluded product is the Fireface."
Marek
8:37 p.m.
New subject: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:32, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:19:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
Well, I don't know exactly what you're calling BS
No no you don't understand, i was quoting RME. I had a discussion with
them on their forum.
Marek
???? RME
never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things.
Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response:
"> [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only
excluded product is the Fireface."
Marek
9:04 p.m.
New subject: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:36:12 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:32, Mark Knecht wrote:
No, I think I do understand. I'm just saying that what what is meant
by the word 'support' is different to different people. TTBOMK they
never provided any drivers for any devices. They only produced
technical documents, and that was quite a while ago. Times are tougher
now. we've had a bad economic downturn. They are not doing things for
free anymore, which is true for many companies. If they told you
earlier that information for the the Fireface would be given to the
Alsa developers and then later reneged then that is very unfortunate.
On the other hand, if you purchased the Fireface without this promise
from RME, or based on someone in the Alsa community saying something
like 'RME's a great company. They always give us info. No problem.
We'll do a driver for you' then that is very unfortunate.
I don't understand exactly how you got yourself into this predicament.
I just know it's really disappointing. I've been there. I know from
experience I cannot help you. I hope someone else can.
I don't know whether you'd be at all interested, but there is a Linux
1394 bus sniffer/protocol analyzer called Nosy. It requires a specific
adapter card. (non-OHCI) You can capture packets being sent to the
Fireface under Windows and possibly develop your own model of how to
use the device. Armed with this info possibly some developer would be
interested in helping out. However that's potentially a huge
undertaking depending on how many things need to happen inside of the
Fireface to make it work. If it's firmware doesn't require loading
across 1394 then it may not be all that bad. However if it needs
firmware every time it's powered up then it's a much more difficult
job. Either way it's a lot of work. I've tried using Nosy to look at
my 002 Rack (just for fun) and the amount of stuff getting transfered
is enormous.
With best regards,
Mark
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:19:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj
<marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
Well, I don't know exactly what you're calling BS
No no you don't understand, i was quoting RME. I had a discussion with
them on their forum. ???? RME
never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things.
Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response:
"> [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only
excluded product is the Fireface."
Marek
7:26 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Cultural differences [Wandering OT]
Last Sunday 28 November 2004 20:31, Mark Knecht was like:
My experience using both is no that different, but
for me it's not political.
Am I wrong when I think this desire is particularly European in
nature? I'm so Open Market driven, especially when it comes to
technology, that I hardly seem to understand this oter POV. However, I
am interested.
[-;{
European politics also include socialist points of view. European alternatives
seem more edgy, punky and rebellious compared to the relatively hedonic view
we get of American culture from this side of the pond. Windows, like
Coca-Cola and MacDonalds, is also seen as a byproduct of American Imperialism
by some.
I remember a young lad from New York coming to visit and being slightly
offended and rather perplexed when we suggested that he shouldn't drink
Coca-Cola. He was like: "What, you guys only drink Pepsi?".[*]
I rest my case.
};-]
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
[*] Note for perplexed Americans: Being English, we only drink warm beer,
which we brew ourselves, or scalding hot tea, freshly stolen from the Indian
sub-continent, with a dash of milk. Of course.
7:47 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Cultural differences [Wandering OT]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 23:26 +0000, tim hall wrote:
I remember a young lad from New York coming to visit
and being slightly
offended and rather perplexed when we suggested that he shouldn't drink
Coca-Cola. He was like: "What, you guys only drink Pepsi?".[*]
Sounds more like New Jersey. ;-)
Seriously, there are many different types of Americans... personally I
can't drink that shit. Too sweet. Everyone I know drinks coffee.
Lee
8:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Cultural differences [Wandering OT]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:26:52 +0000, tim hall
<tech(a)glastonburymusic.org.uk> wrote:
Last Sunday 28 November 2004 20:31, Mark Knecht was
like:
[OT - the following is not about the thread. Just an experience.] Yes.
In the job I just got kicked out of after 5 1/2 years of working for
gentleman from India I saw the same thing kill his company. He
couldn't even see when his socialistic view of how to run his business
was killing him in the middle of the American Open Market economy. He
thought it didn't matter where the money went since he was the
beneficiary of everything good in the company and that it would
trickle down to everyone underneath. What it did in our case was to
make everyone think that the success of the company wasn't up to them
but up to someone else. In the end everyone spent money and no one
made any. I wasn't much impressed by this method of management...
My experience using both is no that different,
but
for me it's not political.
Am I wrong when I think this desire is particularly European in
nature? I'm so Open Market driven, especially when it comes to
technology, that I hardly seem to understand this oter POV. However, I
am interested.
[-;{
European politics also include socialist points of view. European alternatives
seem more edgy, punky and rebellious compared to the relatively hedonic view
we get of American culture from this side of the pond. Windows, like
Coca-Cola and MacDonalds, is also seen as a byproduct of American Imperialism
by some.
Interesting. I have no such view, but logically I shouldn't, right?
I'm stuck in the middle of being Imperial so I cannot see the
guillotine coming down on my neck, can I? ;-)
From this side of th epond it looks like American
manufacuring
enginuity making a product that the world wants (Coke or Pepsi, it
don't matter...) and the socialists being upset that they didn't think
of it first. ;-) Before I get flamed, I do understand tht the US got
it's hed handed to it on a platter in the 1980's by the Japanese, what
with cars and semiconductors, and it probably will have many more of
these experiences in the future. That said, I'm guessing you'd agree
that you're better off having the vote even on that side of the pond?
;-)
I remember a young lad from New York coming to visit and being slightly
offended and rather perplexed when we suggested that he shouldn't drink
Coca-Cola. He was like: "What, you guys only drink Pepsi?".[*]
I rest my case.
LOL!! Love it!
};-]
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
[*] Note for perplexed Americans: Being English, we only drink warm beer,
which we brew ourselves, or scalding hot tea, freshly stolen from the Indian
sub-continent, with a dash of milk. Of course.
Hey, almost exactly the state of affairs in my house, except there are
some beers better served cold...
10:22 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Cultural differences [Wandering OT]
Last Monday 29 November 2004 00:11, Mark Knecht was like:
Interesting. I have no such view, but logically I
shouldn't, right?
I'm stuck in the middle of being Imperial so I cannot see the
guillotine coming down on my neck, can I? ;-)
Kind of, but I won't hold it against you personally ;-] It was a _very_
sweeping generalisation.
From this side of th epond it looks like American
manufacuring
enginuity making a product that the world wants (Coke or Pepsi, it
don't matter...) and the socialists being upset that they didn't think
of it first. ;-)
Actually, the Indians have now found a use for Coke - as a pesticide!
Before I get flamed, I do understand tht the US got
it's hed handed to it on a platter in the 1980's by the Japanese, what
with cars and semiconductors, and it probably will have many more of
these experiences in the future. That said, I'm guessing you'd agree
that you're better off having the vote even on that side of the pond?
;-)
Well, yeah, over here the political parties even have different colours!
Although it has to be said that voting only encourages them. ;-]
cheers
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
11:27 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Cultural differences [Wandering OT]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:22:24 +0000, tim hall
<tech(a)glastonburymusic.org.uk> wrote:
I don't think it's voting as much as a parliamentary system that
encourages them. I'm glad we don't have to deal with the side effects
of that.
I do appreciate how available your Prime Minister is available to you
though. Far better than our President who shows up only once a year.
(Actually, considering who our Prez is maybe that's for the best right
now...)
- Mark
Last Monday 29 November 2004 00:11, Mark Knecht was
like:
Before I get
flamed, I do understand tht the US got
it's hed handed to it on a platter in the 1980's by the Japanese, what
with cars and semiconductors, and it probably will have many more of
these experiences in the future. That said, I'm guessing you'd agree
that you're better off having the vote even on that side of the pond?
;-)
Well, yeah, over here the political parties even have different colours!
Although it has to be said that voting only encourages them. ;-]
11:46 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Cultural differences [Wandering OT]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:27 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
I do appreciate how available your Prime Minister is
available to you
though. Far better than our President who shows up only once a year.
Yeah unless the election is going to be close in your state in which
case he comes to town every two weeks.
Lee
6:46 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:20, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't
release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable
quality and the same support as the Windows driver.
Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Seems i can't convince you on this issue Lee :)
It's _not_ _at_ _all_ as valuable as it might seem.
3 reasons:
1. the audio market is about to be flooded with firewire interfaces (an
hour a go i just discovered that echo also plans such interface) and
they will all deliver outstanding performance (at least that's what they
claim ;)
2. All of the companies have hired very skilled people to do the job and
as a result each and every product will talk to the pc in a different
way, each will cripple OHCI or whatever protocol in a different way in
order to achieve better results, and each will introduce different
problems to its users. In an ideal world, with everything opensourced,
they would all just work together on a audio-over-ieee1394 standard,
achieving much better results.
3. Audioscience - i'm going to repeat this over and over again.
Imagine RME programming opensource ALSA drivers and providing official
support for those, imagine nvidia and ati providing opensource dri
drivers and providing official support for it. That's what audioscience
does. If there's someone who doesn't want this, please raise your hand
now.
Isn't audioscience providing it's own valuable IP?
Marek
Fine with
me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right?
Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or
Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect
them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on
Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that
this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and
wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another
Windows box.
7:15 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:45 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Hey I don't necessarily disagree. I think open hardware would be great
and it looks like some might happen. I am just saying that RME designed
the hardware, so this is for them to determine.
In theory you should be able to patent whatever innovations you make in
your hardware design, so you can release open drivers without being
ripped off. But IANAL and I have no idea whether it really works this
way. Apparently the main reason Nvidia and ATI cannot open their source
is because they are both knowingly infringing each others patents.
Lee
Of course I
would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Seems i can't convince you on this issue Lee :)
It's _not_ _at_ _all_ as valuable as it might seem.
7:44 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:15:24 -0500, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
Apparently the main reason Nvidia and ATI cannot open
their source
is because they are both knowingly infringing each others patents.
No, I really don't think this is the reason. I don't believe either of
these companies intentionally infringe on their competitor's, or
anyone elses, patents. What's more likely is that there is visibility
given to their competitor by the way you talk to the hardware through
a function call.
When I start to understand the registers that a piece of hardware
makes visible I start to understand the architecture of the product
itself. If NVidia believes has an advantage over ATI in some area then
possibly ATI would copy that and improve their performance. Neither
company probably knows the intimate details of the inner workings of
the other company's chips and hence thinks they have the advantage.
Beyond ATI, maybe they are fending off new competitors trying to enter
the market. Why tell anyone what your secret sauce is made of? If it's
no longer secret, and it doesn't have some other form of protection,
then anyone can copy it for free.
It's a huge business opportunity for each of them, extendign way
beyond PCs and into many other sorts of hardware like gaming boxes,
render farms, and they must do what they think is best for their
shareholders.
29 Nov
29 Nov
4:15 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Mark Knecht wrote:
...
When I start to understand the registers that a piece
of hardware
makes visible I start to understand the architecture of the product
itself. If NVidia believes has an advantage over ATI in some area then
possibly ATI would copy that and improve their performance. Neither
company probably knows the intimate details of the inner workings of
the other company's chips and hence thinks they have the advantage.
is it really that hard to reverse engineer the binary only driver?
Does it make any real world difference for competitors? (my guess it
that it makes no difference and that companies are either fooling
themselves or just don't want to bother with legalities of releasing
info parts of which might be owned by other companies etc.)
erik
4:52 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:15 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
For a sound card, it's easy. James Courtier-Dutton reverse engineered
the Audigy LS in a few days. But a 3D driver is literally like rocket
science. It's _hard_. This was discussed on the "open source graphics"
thread on LKML. The consensus was that it's essentially impossible.
Lee
When I start
to understand the registers that a piece of hardware
makes visible I start to understand the architecture of the product
itself. If NVidia believes has an advantage over ATI in some area then
possibly ATI would copy that and improve their performance. Neither
company probably knows the intimate details of the inner workings of
the other company's chips and hence thinks they have the advantage.
is it really that hard to reverse engineer the binary only driver?
Does it make any real world difference for competitors? (my guess it
that it makes no difference and that companies are either fooling
themselves or just don't want to bother with legalities of releasing
info parts of which might be owned by other companies etc.) 
6:10 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On 2004-11-29T03:52:51-0500, Lee Revell wrote:
James Courtier-Dutton reverse engineered the Audigy LS
in a few days.
Is reverse engineering legal? Does the license not usually contain
verbage to bar to you from using that option?
/Allan
6:52 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Dnia 29-11-2004, pon o godzinie 05:10 -0500, Allan Wind napisał(a):
On 2004-11-29T03:52:51-0500, Lee Revell wrote:
It depends of country's law. For instance in Poland, where I live,
reverse engineering is legal in some cases regardless of license
statements saying the opposite. Among this cases is creating compatible
applications when no available documentation exists.
I suppose there may be similar law in other countries.
best regards,
Michal Kostrzewa
James Courtier-Dutton reverse engineered the
Audigy LS in a few days.
Is reverse engineering legal? Does the license not usually contain
verbage to bar to you from using that option?
7:10 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Monday 29 November 2004 10:51, Michal Kostrzewa wrote:
Dnia 29-11-2004, pon o godzinie 05:10 -0500, Allan
Wind napisał(a):
this is the situation throughout the EU.
Edward Barrow
Copyright Consultant
edward(a)copyweb.co.uk
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for important information
about the legal status of this email
On 2004-11-29T03:52:51-0500, Lee Revell wrote:
It depends of country's law. For instance in Poland, where I live,
reverse engineering is legal in some cases regardless of license
statements saying the opposite. Among this cases is creating compatible
applications when no available documentation exists.
I suppose there may be similar law in other countries. James Courtier-Dutton reverse engineered the
Audigy LS in a few days.
Is reverse engineering legal? Does the license not usually contain
verbage to bar to you from using that option? 
7:04 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Allan Wind wrote:
On 2004-11-29T03:52:51-0500, Lee Revell wrote:
It depends on where you live. Here in Denmark I believe it is legal to
reverse engineer.
/Hasse
James Courtier-Dutton reverse engineered the
Audigy LS in a few days.
Is reverse engineering legal? Does the license not usually contain
verbage to bar to you from using that option?
/Allan
9:34 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Allan Wind wrote:
On 2004-11-29T03:52:51-0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Yes. In Germany, the law says it's legal "if it is necessary for
interoperability". AFAIK the DMCA contains a similar clause.
James Courtier-Dutton reverse engineered the
Audigy LS in a few days.
Is reverse engineering legal? Does the license not usually contain verbage to bar to
you from
using that option?
Yes, but in most cases, the end user didn't legally agree to the
license, and the law says such a clause is invalid anyway.
Clemens
11:51 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
How well do decompilers work on the binary drivers? I'm not talking
about firewire devices here, I mean on just regular pci audio interfaces.
Rick B
30 Nov
30 Nov
8:43 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Dnia 29-11-2004, pon o godzinie 10:53 -0500, Rick B napisał(a):
How well do decompilers work on the binary drivers?
I'm not talking
about firewire devices here, I mean on just regular pci audio interfaces.
Rick B
To tools that are known to me works well with *any* bigger compiled
executable. Tools - I mean decompilers not just disassemblers. I hope
Boomerang (boomerang.sf.net) will do it in some future, when it becomes
more interactive.
I'm reverse engineering a PCI driver for sound interface now (I've
discovered basic data exchange with the card and card initialization
code for now). I assure you it's quite time consumming process. However
it's certainly is not impossible to do.
best regards,
Michal Kostrzewa
2 Dec
2 Dec
7:45 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Michal Kostrzewa wrote:
I'm reverse engineering a PCI driver for sound
interface now (I've
discovered basic data exchange with the card and card initialization
code for now).
Just out of interest, what card are you reverse engineering?
I have a Guillemot Maxi Sound ISIS which I'd be very interested in
finding ALSA drivers for. The card is unsupported, and only has Windows
98 drivers. I did subscribe to a list involved in working on the driver,
but have lost the relevant URL, and didn't hear any more. As a graduate
of "Electronic Engineering with Music Technology", do you think I could
make any progress myself? Where might I start?
I probably won't find time - I'm driving around a lot for my boss at the
moment, and need to spend time (and money!) working on my car too. The
lack of time and money is also what drives my desire to get the card
working under Linux. If I had more money, I'd just buy some RME hardware...
Cheers
Michael Nelson
9:49 a.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
I have a Guillemot Maxi Sound ISIS which I'd be
very interested in
finding ALSA drivers for. The card is unsupported, and only has Windows
98 drivers. I did subscribe to a list involved in working on the driver,
but have lost the relevant URL, and didn't hear any more. As a graduate
of "Electronic Engineering with Music Technology", do you think I could
make any progress myself? Where might I start?
To reverse engineer a driver you have to:
- know assembly language (however extremely deep knowledge of every
instruction is not necessary. It is important to know how the compiler
produces machine code - stack frames, basic c instructions, and so on)
- know how devices work (e.g. PCI communication) and the mechanisms of
operating system (e.g. responding to interrupts, memory management) and
common practices used in audio hardware
- know how to write drivers in windows - you have to know the API one
has to use and interfaces one has to implement to write the driver
- know how to write alsa drivers for linux.
- have plenty of time :) Automatic decompilation is theoretically
impossible in general case (as the algorithm is separated from the data
structures), but doable. But keep in mind that disassembling the driver
is only the first step. You have to
- discover data structures used by the driver
- discover function signatures used in the driver
- discover proprietary protocol used to driver-device communication
- writing the actual linux alsa driver is the smallest part of work
comparing to decompilation
I probably won't find time - I'm driving around a lot for my boss at the
moment, and need to spend time (and money!) working on my car too. The
lack of time and money is also what drives my desire to get the card
working under Linux.
You may give yourself a try, I assure you it's an interesting
activity :) but time consuming and there is no sure it will end with
success. You've been warned :)
best regards,
Michal Kostrzewa
30 Nov
30 Nov
3:38 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Mark Knecht wrote:
When I start to understand the registers that a piece
of hardware
makes visible I start to understand the architecture of the product
itself. If NVidia believes has an advantage over ATI in some area then
possibly ATI would copy that and improve their performance. Neither
company probably knows the intimate details of the inner workings of
the other company's chips and hence thinks they have the advantage.
Reminds me of a quote,
"If our enemies got ahold of our secrets, it would set them back
at least 10 years!"
28 Nov
28 Nov
7:46 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Apparently the main reason Nvidia and ATI cannot open
their
source is because they are both knowingly infringing each
others patents.
Sometimes you also cannot open your code because you have
licensed third party code.
Best regards
ce
8:08 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:46 +0100, Christoph Eckert wrote:
This information supposedly comes from anonymous sources at Nvidia.
There are references in the LKML archives. Of course it can't be
verified. Treat it like any other rumor you see on the Internets... ;-)
Lee
Apparently the
main reason Nvidia and ATI cannot open their
source is because they are both knowingly infringing each
others patents.
Sometimes you also cannot open your code because you have
licensed third party code.
10:10 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Christoph Eckert wrote:
Yes, that is what Nvidia has been saying.
Rick B
Apparently the
main reason Nvidia and ATI cannot open their
source is because they are both knowingly infringing each
others patents.
Sometimes you also cannot open your code because you have
licensed third party code.
Best regards
ce
8:33 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:15, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:45 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Hey I don't necessarily disagree. I think open hardware would be great
and it looks like some might happen. I am just saying that RME designed
the hardware, so this is for them to determine.
In theory you should be able to patent whatever innovations you make in
your hardware design, so you can release open drivers without being
ripped off. But IANAL and I have no idea whether it really works this
way. Apparently the main reason Nvidia and ATI cannot open their source
is because they are both knowingly infringing each others patents.
How about using the same chip for different ranges of products, clocked
at different speeds? :) I don't think one factory would produce 5
different chips really. Too costly.
It's easy to throttle one chip using closed software.
just my 2c.
Marek
Of course
I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Seems i can't convince you on this issue Lee :)
It's _not_ _at_ _all_ as valuable as it might seem.
6:55 p.m.
New subject: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't
release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable
quality and the same support as the Windows driver.
Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely,
for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship
with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that
stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just
as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition.
Lee
Nvidia isn't going to drop Linux support as long as big movie studios
like Pixar and ILM are using their products with Linux.
Rick B
Fine with
me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay
for, right?
Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or
Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect
them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on
Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that
this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and
wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another
Windows box.
6:52 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 21:43, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 01:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Mackie designs
hardware and manufactures it in the USA. Behringer reverse engineers
Mackie's (among others) design, replaces some parts with cheaper ones,
and manufactures in China.
Mackie has lost a lot of money as a result and has had to move some
production abroad.
I don't believe it's the only cause. It's like saying that the recording
industry is losing money just becasue people are pirating stuff. Nobody
there cares about the quality. Besides, Mackie doesn't target low-end
market that much anyway.
Marek
They
create software to support it and make it work. Then all the
technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy
and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't
make money and goes out of business.
Did this happen?
7397
days inactive
7397
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
209 comments
42 participants
participants (42)
-
Aaron Trumm -
allan_wind＠lifeintegrity.com -
Andres Cabrera -
Chris Cannam -
Chris Metzler -
Clemens Ladisch -
Dan Harper -
Dave Phillips -
Dave Robillard -
David Stephens -
Edward Barrow -
Erik Steffl -
Esben Stien -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Florin Andrei -
Frank Barknecht -
Hasse Hagen Johansen -
Jack O'Quin -
Jamie Guinan -
Jan Depner -
Joe Hartley -
John Check -
jonathan segel -
Lee Revell -
Marek Peteraj -
Mark Knecht -
Matthias Nagorni -
mchristoph.eckert＠t-online.de -
Michael T Nelson -
Michal Kostrzewa -
Paul Winkler -
R Parker -
Rick B -
Rob -
Robert Jonsson -
Russell Hanaghan -
Ruth A. Kramer -
Ryan Gallagher -
tim hall -
Tim Hockin -
Tim Orford -
Wolfgang Woehl