30 Oct
2016
30 Oct
'16
9:32 p.m.
http://libremusicproduction.com/articles/lmp-asks-21-interview-yassin-philip
It was a bit weird remembering all those things. Thanks to everyone of
you, and let's keep rocking it :)
yPhil
--
Yassin "xaccrocheur" Philip
http://manyrecords.com / http://yassinphilip.bitbucket.org
30 Oct
30 Oct
9:58 p.m.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:32:14 +0000
Yassin Philip <philcm(a)gnu.org> wrote:
It was a bit weird remembering all those things.
Thanks to everyone
of you, and let's keep rocking it :)
Excerpt:
"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?
Because I just don't trust proprietary code. Call me paranoid, but in
reality I'm just lazy :) I like to know that somebody, somewhere, and
preferably me, has read the code that I execute. But this is only one
reason. I find the proprietary world a PITA of dongles, cracks download
sites and talkative installers. I prefer to talk to the coding team
through a bugtracker than to "contact technical services". I want to
re-install a studio machine in one command that will pull everything I
need ; I want to spend more time doing just music.
It's basic hygiene. I use FLOSS, I write FLOSS code, and that's it."
Like dental floss. Basic. A bit of dissension, though -
The arguments for the use are not very strong, IMHO. Nobody reads
the code of Ardour before using it. Did you ? How much time not
making music ? And if you don't agree with a function, then stop using
Ardour ? Of course not.
So if the goal is to spend more time doing music, then reading the code
to all the software is out of the question.
Proprietary world is not a world of dongles. What about trust ? I
trust very much the stability and performance of all u-he products. I
trust the dedication of the people developing Bitwig. I trust the
people making Renoise and Redux, two very stable and creative
products. I trust Harrison when they add to Ardour. So on so forth.
But then, maybe this LibreMusicProduction outlet is one in which a bit
of propaganda is simply a matter of fact, and the mention of
proprietary products running on Linux is only found in the commentaries.
Cheers.
31 Oct
31 Oct
7:17 p.m.
Totally agree with Jonetsu here.
Saying that free software is cool because you can look at the code is a bit
like saying that
you are happy that you can login to Joe's email account by virtue of being
able to use your
keyboard and typing in a password. Theoretically, you can brute force it.
Well, given a couple of
billion years.
There is simply no time in the world that anyone can review code for even
one sophisticated
piece of software they are using. So those claims of free software
activists are mostly irrelevant
for the ordinary user and are no more than sound bites.
Especially funny to read that you want to focus on music. Isn't focusing
code directly contradicts
focusing on music?
"I find the proprietary world a PITA of dongles, cracks download sites and
talkative installers"
Cracks download sites? Maybe it is time to actually pay the developers for
their software and
not just crack it? A lot of PITA goes away after that!
"I prefer to talk to the coding team through a bugtracker than to "contact
technical services".
I agree it is a great thing. However, not always. Sometimes developers will
like you in turn
and fulfill you requests. Some will tell you to go and "fix the code".
How's that for focus on
music?
Whereas many tech services of proprietary programs will really help you
solve the problem.
Alas, you have to buy the software first, not use cracks download sites!
In my view, both worlds offer complementary things. I use both proprietary
packages and
FLOSS. There is no FLStudio on Linux, but then there is no JACK-like
environment with
the apps I need, like kluppe or din. So, I use both.
I am now working on the article heavily criticizing Stallman's free
software philosophy. On
closer inspection many of his arguments are weak. But his ideas are rarely
challenged and
are usually taken for granted.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:58 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:32:14 +0000
Yassin Philip <philcm(a)gnu.org> wrote:
interview-yassin-philip
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
It was a bit weird remembering all those things.
Thanks to everyone
of you, and let's keep rocking it :)
Excerpt:
"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?
Because I just don't trust proprietary code. Call me paranoid, but in
reality I'm just lazy :) I like to know that somebody, somewhere, and
preferably me, has read the code that I execute. But this is only one
reason. I find the proprietary world a PITA of dongles, cracks download
sites and talkative installers. I prefer to talk to the coding team
through a bugtracker than to "contact technical services". I want to
re-install a studio machine in one command that will pull everything I
need ; I want to spend more time doing just music.
It's basic hygiene. I use FLOSS, I write FLOSS code, and that's it."
Like dental floss. Basic. A bit of dissension, though -
The arguments for the use are not very strong, IMHO. Nobody reads
the code of Ardour before using it. Did you ? How much time not
making music ? And if you don't agree with a function, then stop using
Ardour ? Of course not.
So if the goal is to spend more time doing music, then reading the code
to all the software is out of the question.
Proprietary world is not a world of dongles. What about trust ? I
trust very much the stability and performance of all u-he products. I
trust the dedication of the people developing Bitwig. I trust the
people making Renoise and Redux, two very stable and creative
products. I trust Harrison when they add to Ardour. So on so forth.
But then, maybe this LibreMusicProduction outlet is one in which a bit
of propaganda is simply a matter of fact, and the mention of
proprietary products running on Linux is only found in the commentaries.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:23 p.m.
Le 31/10/2016 20:17, Louigi Verona a écrit :
Totally agree with Jonetsu here.
Saying that free software is cool because you can look at the code is
a bit like saying that
you are happy that you can login to Joe's email account by virtue of
being able to use your
keyboard and typing in a password. Theoretically, you can brute force
it. Well, given a couple of
billion years.
Or you may think it's about share VS not buying something
There is simply no time in the world that anyone can review code for
even one sophisticated
piece of software they are using. So those claims of free software
activists are mostly irrelevant
for the ordinary user and are no more than sound bites.
Yes, but if one people at
one time WANT to read that code he could do it
in the FLOSS world, not in prop 1
Especially funny to read that you want to focus on music. Isn't
focusing code directly contradicts
focusing on music?
You got the point, where jonetsu, hmm...
"I find the proprietary world a PITA of dongles, cracks download sites
and talkative installers"
Cracks download sites? Maybe it is time to actually pay the developers
for their software and
not just crack it? A lot of PITA goes away after that!
Yes, cracking is not a good
stuff. OTOH, software MAY be for free. Once
you have done "1.0", who is not able to copy it for free?
"I prefer to talk to the coding team through a bugtracker than to
"contact technical services".
I agree it is a great thing. However, not always. Sometimes developers
will like you in turn
and fulfill you requests. Some will tell you to go and "fix the code".
I
can provide you a thousands lines of 1 mail-xchanges with
sony-clients-service, which leads to nowhere...
AND a thousands differents mails on LAU which leads to solution...
How's that for focus on
music?
Again, You got the point, where jonetsu, hmm...
Whereas many tech services of proprietary programs will really help
you solve the problem.
Alas, you have to buy the software first, not use cracks download sites!
Here is
LAU-list, who is talking about buying software? Who needs to
crack a FLOSS stuff?
In my view, both worlds offer complementary things.
I agree, in some world you need
to buy things!
I use both proprietary packages and
FLOSS.
I don't, & my people &I knows why.
There is no FLStudio on Linux, but then there is no
JACK-like
environment with
the apps I need, like kluppe or din. So, I use both.
Do you need to USE STUFF, or
to DO THINGS ?
Learn how to use tools is the point. Improve they is the key;
I am now working on the article heavily criticizing Stallman's free
software philosophy. On
closer inspection many of his arguments are weak. But his ideas are
rarely challenged and
are usually taken for granted.
Good luck if you are willing to face Stallman with
controversy in mind!
Oh, Louigi, don't take all that personal too much; I really appreciate
what you often post here..
9:24 p.m.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:23:37 +0100
fred <f.rech(a)yahoo.fr> wrote:
GOTIT is 0
inc GOTIT
if GOTIT is 1
GOTO THERE
Or you may think it's about share VS not buying
something
Then it is not Open. It is half-baked. It has a 'versus' clause.
Welcome Open, others not. 'Open' is then novlang for 'us'.
Yes, but if one people at one time WANT to read that
code he could do
it in the FLOSS world, not in prop 1
And if one does not agree with an algorithm then one stops using
Ardour. After one month (minimum) of hard work going through the
Ardour code, Ardour is ditched. Now let's move on to QTractor...
Making music ? Well, after this, and hopefully QTractor will be OK,
one has to go through all the plugins. So yes, making music in about a
year from now. Have to keep an eye on Ardour updates at the same
time. Hopefully there will not be a OS update by then, because one
will have to recheck all of the audio infrastructure code.
Maybe one will be contented in making some C64-like noises a year from
now, in between two code examinations.
> Especially funny to read that you want to focus
on music. Isn't
> focusing code directly contradicts
> focusing on music?
You got the point, where jonetsu, hmm...
THERE:
It was written:
"So if the goal is to spend more time doing music, then reading the code
to all the software is out of the question."
Yes, cracking is not a good stuff. OTOH, software MAY
be for free.
Once you have done "1.0", who is not able to copy it for free?
Makes me think, just bought the latest from Italian band Deux ex
Machina (1). Because I find it important to give money. And this is a
small label, so it also helps them. It so happens that people need
money to go by. Designing and implementing quality software takes
time. Doing it in evenings and weekend is no longer enough. It was at
a certain time, not it does not fare as well because software gets more
sophisticated.
I can provide you a thousands lines of 1 mail-xchanges
with
sony-clients-service, which leads to nowhere...
AND a thousands differents mails on LAU which leads to solution...
That's not a good comparison isn't it. It's uprooted. So let's compare
instead with Bitwig. Let's compare with u-he. Let's compare with
Harrison. DiscoDSP. OvertoneDSP. Filterscape was given to me by
u-he. Let's compare with u-he Linux support on KVR.
How's that
for focus on
music?
Again, You got the point, where jonetsu, hmm... Here is LAU-list, who is talking about buying
software? Who needs to
crack a FLOSS stuff?
This was part of Phil's text.
> In my view, both worlds offer complementary
things.
I agree, in some world you need to buy things!
Let's make it simple and let's say this world right here. Like food,
for instance.
> I use both proprietary packages and
> FLOSS.
I don't, & my people &I knows why.
Why ?
> There is no FLStudio on Linux, but then there is
no JACK-like
> environment with
> the apps I need, like kluppe or din. So, I use both.
Do you need to USE STUFF, or to DO THINGS ?
Learn how to use tools is the point. Improve they is the key;
At which point one stops making music to design sound generation
algorithms that will rival with the best softsynths out there. I would
wage, though, that after near a year of full dedicated work one will
wonder why one does not get paid for this great sounding softsynth he
just made (well, when it will get a UI because so far there's no time
to work on a UI yet...)
Good luck if you are willing to face Stallman with
controversy in
mind! Oh, Louigi, don't take all that personal too much; I really
appreciate what you often post here..
If Stallman reflects the Close mind of Open activists.
(1) Deus Ex Machina - "Figli"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyS5V6wJ1mk
Live Bologna 7/10/16 "Multiverso" (Official video) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
NP: "The 16 F_king Years Anniversary Session" - Kruder & Dorfmeister
9:37 p.m.
I actually did not receive fred's reply. Maybe it was sent only to jonetsu?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:24 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:23:37 +0100
fred <f.rech(a)yahoo.fr> wrote:
GOTIT is 0
inc GOTIT
if GOTIT is 1
GOTO THERE
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
Or you may think it's about share VS not
buying something
Then it is not Open. It is half-baked. It has a 'versus' clause.
Welcome Open, others not. 'Open' is then novlang for 'us'.
Yes, but if one people at one time WANT to read
that code he could do
it in the FLOSS world, not in prop 1
And if one does not agree with an algorithm then one stops using
Ardour. After one month (minimum) of hard work going through the
Ardour code, Ardour is ditched. Now let's move on to QTractor...
Making music ? Well, after this, and hopefully QTractor will be OK,
one has to go through all the plugins. So yes, making music in about a
year from now. Have to keep an eye on Ardour updates at the same
time. Hopefully there will not be a OS update by then, because one
will have to recheck all of the audio infrastructure code.
Maybe one will be contented in making some C64-like noises a year from
now, in between two code examinations.
> Especially funny to read that you want to
focus on music. Isn't
> focusing code directly contradicts
> focusing on music?
You got the point, where jonetsu, hmm...
THERE:
It was written:
"So if the goal is to spend more time doing music, then reading the code
to all the software is out of the question."
Yes, cracking is not a good stuff. OTOH, software
MAY be for free.
Once you have done "1.0", who is not able to copy it for free?
Makes me think, just bought the latest from Italian band Deux ex
Machina (1). Because I find it important to give money. And this is a
small label, so it also helps them. It so happens that people need
money to go by. Designing and implementing quality software takes
time. Doing it in evenings and weekend is no longer enough. It was at
a certain time, not it does not fare as well because software gets more
sophisticated.
I can provide you a thousands lines of 1
mail-xchanges with
sony-clients-service, which leads to nowhere...
AND a thousands differents mails on LAU which leads to solution...
That's not a good comparison isn't it. It's uprooted. So let's compare
instead with Bitwig. Let's compare with u-he. Let's compare with
Harrison. DiscoDSP. OvertoneDSP. Filterscape was given to me by
u-he. Let's compare with u-he Linux support on KVR.
How's
that for focus on
music?
Again, You got the point, where jonetsu, hmm... Here is LAU-list, who is talking about buying
software? Who needs to
crack a FLOSS stuff?
This was part of Phil's text.
> In my view, both worlds offer complementary
things.
I agree, in some world you need to buy things!
Let's make it simple and let's say this world right here. Like food,
for instance.
> I use both proprietary packages and
> FLOSS.
I don't, & my people &I knows why.
Why ?
> There is no FLStudio on Linux, but then there
is no JACK-like
> environment with
> the apps I need, like kluppe or din. So, I use both.
Do you need to USE STUFF, or to DO THINGS ?
Learn how to use tools is the point. Improve they is the key;
At which point one stops making music to design sound generation
algorithms that will rival with the best softsynths out there. I would
wage, though, that after near a year of full dedicated work one will
wonder why one does not get paid for this great sounding softsynth he
just made (well, when it will get a UI because so far there's no time
to work on a UI yet...)
Good luck if you are willing to face Stallman
with controversy in
mind! Oh, Louigi, don't take all that personal too much; I really
appreciate what you often post here..
If Stallman reflects the Close mind of Open activists.
(1) Deus Ex Machina - "Figli"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyS5V6wJ1mk
Live Bologna 7/10/16 "Multiverso" (Official video) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
NP: "The 16 F_king Years Anniversary Session" - Kruder & Dorfmeister
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:52 p.m.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:37:15 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I actually did not receive fred's reply. Maybe it
was sent only to
jonetsu?
No, it was sent to LAU.
BTW, please post the link to your article when it'll be done.
--
NP: "The 16 F_king Years Anniversary Session" - Kruder & Dorfmeister
10:02 p.m.
Interesting, I don't see it in my email.
I will post a link to it. It is a very big work, I am working on it since
July already. I did put together a quick post on Linux adoption, which
might be relevant to the unfortunate propaganda piece of some of the free
software community (obviously, not all, many people in the community do not
do any propaganda and are just developing software and enjoying their time
with technology).
http://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=lin…
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:52 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:37:15 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
I actually did not receive fred's reply.
Maybe it was sent only to
jonetsu?
No, it was sent to LAU.
BTW, please post the link to your article when it'll be done.
--
NP: "The 16 F_king Years Anniversary Session" - Kruder & Dorfmeister
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
10:11 p.m.
Ah, ok, Jonetsu forwarded it to me. I wonder why I am not seeing it.
Yeah, Fred, I am not taking it personally at all. And you are right -
criticizing anything Stallman wrote is bound to create controversy - at
least in some circles. My goal, however, is to start a discussion, so I
will try to not become part of any controversy - as much as it's possible.
We'll see. Maybe my article will not get much attention anyway, I am not a
known person and my audience is very small.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Interesting, I don't see it in my email.
I will post a link to it. It is a very big work, I am working on it since
July already. I did put together a quick post on Linux adoption, which
might be relevant to the unfortunate propaganda piece of some of the free
software community (obviously, not all, many people in the community do not
do any propaganda and are just developing software and enjoying their time
with technology).
http://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=lin…
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:52 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:37:15 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
I actually did not receive fred's reply.
Maybe it was sent only to
jonetsu?
No, it was sent to LAU.
BTW, please post the link to your article when it'll be done.
--
NP: "The 16 F_king Years Anniversary Session" - Kruder & Dorfmeister
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
10:25 p.m.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:11:17 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We'll see. Maybe my article will not get much
attention anyway, I am
not a known person and my audience is very small.
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life (whistling) : It would be worse
under Kim Jong-Un.
1 Nov
1 Nov
7:45 a.m.
Le 31/10/2016 23:11, Louigi Verona a écrit :
Ah, ok, Jonetsu forwarded it to me. I wonder why I am
not seeing it.
^^ ha ha, maybe an Apache attack on your mail server? ^^
Yeah, Fred, I am not taking it personally at all. And you are right -
criticizing anything Stallman wrote is bound to create controversy -
at least in some circles. My goal, however, is to start a discussion,
so I will try to not become part of any controversy - as much as it's
possible.
You're right, maybe I have to minor some kind of troll mood here..
More
seriously, I think that Stallman words criticize creates controversy
because "a certain number of people" -and as you point in the article
linked below, it's hard to count this number of people- understand the
powerfull ideas in FLOSS, plus knows about the business model of
windows/apple/and others (from time to time a new version of OS or a
powerfull new game, or a new standard like blue-ray.. forces you to
change your equipment to "enjoy the user experience", and... do we talk
about /built-in//obsolescence/ of products?). And maybe some CEOs of
closed source products have understood too, that the 4 FLOSS principles
could be something that will lead them to less money making, if A LOT of
people around the world join open source? So it becomes natural that
open source users "defend" Stallmans' ideas, and people from closed
world try to discredit him. Not sure if that's where you want the
conversation you've started to go?
We'll see. Maybe my article will not get much attention anyway, I am
not a known person and my audience is very small.
I will post a link to it. It is a very big work, I am working on
it since July already. I did put together a quick post on Linux
adoption, which might be relevant to the unfortunate propaganda
piece of some of the free software community (obviously, not all,
many people in the community do not do any propaganda and are just
developing software and enjoying their time with technology).
Am a no-dev-person, maybe that's why -when don't make music with only
FLOSS and real instruments- I do propaganda? Cool if I could learn more,
to speak with more accuracy.
http://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=lin…
<http://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_badarg>
You shake the tree with this article, and it seems that all you write is
ok. Since, you now have to provide evidences, haven't you?
--
Fred,
11:09 a.m.
Il 31/10/2016 20:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
There is simply no time in the world that anyone can
review code for
even one sophisticated
piece of software they are using. So those claims of free software
activists are mostly irrelevant
for the ordinary user and are no more than sound bites.
Hi folks!
If you do not have enough time, or competence like me, to review source
code of the software you use, there are people that do this boring work
for you in order to assure you that the software you use will do exactly
what you expect. This people are the contributors developers, and we
have at least 71 people who control Ardour[1] for you, and 26 who
control Hydrogen[2] for you. And you can talk with them asking for bugs
correction, new features or more stability, if this is what you are
looking for. A very different approach from the proprietary software.
I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?
I complete agree with yPhil, and that's why I applied the free software
reasons to my music, and I share not only my songs, but even my single
recordings tracks and Ardour project with a CC-BY-SA license.
Please, see:
http://johnoption.org/?page_id=9
Ciao,
Max-B
1. https://github.com/Ardour/ardour
2. https://github.com/hydrogen-music/hydrogen
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
12:22 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:09:45 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
If you do not have enough time, or competence like me,
to review
source code of the software you use, there are people that do this
boring work for you in order to assure you that the software you use
will do exactly what you expect. This people are the contributors
developers, and we have at least 71 people who control Ardour[1] for
you, and 26 who control Hydrogen[2] for you. And you can talk with
them asking for bugs correction, new features or more stability, if
this is what you are looking for. A very different approach from the
proprietary software.
No difference at all. None whatsoever.
It is amazing how the context is extrapolated and hyped to sustain
an activism of 'us and them'.
The context is Linux audio/music. Not illuminati vs. human nature or
some such.
Why shoot in one's own foot ?
Every sentence that you have written, quoted above, can be matched
equally by proprietary offerings. No difference at all, apart from the
name of the software products, and the number of people.
Every single notion brought in your text can be matched by u-he,
Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial products
that runs on Linux.
I do not expect that a software that I use for
recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?
This is Linux audio.
I complete agree with yPhil, and that's why I
applied the free
software reasons to my music, and I share not only my songs, but even
my single recordings tracks and Ardour project with a CC-BY-SA
license.
You could very well sell your music made with Open Source software.
The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
software itself.
Cheers.
--
NP: "Dittatura della mediocrita" - Deus ex Machina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acrdYjceBrQ
1:08 p.m.
Hi.
Il 01/11/2016 13:22, jonetsu ha scritto:
Every sentence that you have written, quoted above,
can be matched
equally by proprietary offerings. No difference at all, apart from the
name of the software products, and the number of people.
Can you use proprietary software without any limits? Can you study the
source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
You could very well sell your music made with Open
Source software.
The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
software itself.
I can assure that I can apply to my music any license I want :-)
I chose a Creative Commons license Attribution, Share alike (CC-BY-SA)
and I used this license to publish final mix, single recordings tracks
and Ardour project that are a sort of "source code" of our music. This
is my way to say thanks to developers who wrote Ardour, Hydrogen, CALF
and many others great software ad free software.
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
1:54 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:08:36 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Can you use proprietary software without any limits?
Can you study the
source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
2) No. I want to make music, not dispute algorithms. When I put my
nose in source code is to get paid, to bring bread and butter to the
table. When I'm, not paid, I like to make music. And biking, and
various fun things.
3) No. See 2).
4) No. I believe people has a right to earn a living.
> You could very well sell your music made with Open
Source software.
> The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
> software itself.
I can assure that I can apply to my music any license
I want :-)
Exactly.
I chose a Creative Commons license Attribution, Share
alike
(CC-BY-SA) and I used this license to publish final mix, single
recordings tracks and Ardour project that are a sort of "source code"
of our music. This is my way to say thanks to developers who wrote
Ardour, Hydrogen, CALF and many others great software ad free
software.
And there can be a time also when one will want to make money. Why
not ?
Ciao.
--
NP: "Multiverso" - Deus ex machina (Official video, Bologna, October
2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
2:07 p.m.
Massimo,
Let me give a go at your questions too.
*Can you use proprietary software without any limits?* Yes. Well,
disregarding the limits of the software itself. I cannot use a sound editor
to edit videos.
*Can you study the source code of a proprietary software?* Sometimes. Some
proprietary vendors do release their source code. Like, Microsoft
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source>. In fact, seeing source code
does not make a program non-proprietary. There are open source proprietary
packages. Look at the code, study it, but you cannot release modified
versions.
*Can you modify the proprietary software?* Nope. However, neither can I
modify open source software. I am not a programmer, therefore theoretical
ability to modify, say, my favorite looper Kluppe is quite irrelevant to
me. I tried asking developers for help - nobody could do it. Period. For me
virtually zero difference. Kluppe might as well had been proprietary.
Now, to be fair, because it was open source and free, Falk could write a
patch for it to support JACK2. So small changes are sometimes a benefit.
But for larger changes? Almost no difference.
*Can you redistribute proprietary software?* Sometimes I can. Depends on
the license. Mostly I cannot. I also don't think that I need to
redistribute it. I can tell you that FL Studio is a wonderful DAW. You can
try it out, if you like it - you can pay money for it and work with it. If
you have no money, I don't think that it is my mission to get you FL
Studio. I might want to help you and buy a license for you, if I want to
help. But I don't think you or anyone else is entitled to a free copy.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:54 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:08:36 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
Can you use proprietary software without any
limits? Can you study the
source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
2) No. I want to make music, not dispute algorithms. When I put my
nose in source code is to get paid, to bring bread and butter to the
table. When I'm, not paid, I like to make music. And biking, and
various fun things.
3) No. See 2).
4) No. I believe people has a right to earn a living.
> You could very well sell your music made with
Open Source software.
> The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
> software itself.
I can assure that I can apply to my music any
license I want :-)
Exactly.
I chose a Creative Commons license Attribution,
Share alike
(CC-BY-SA) and I used this license to publish final mix, single
recordings tracks and Ardour project that are a sort of "source code"
of our music. This is my way to say thanks to developers who wrote
Ardour, Hydrogen, CALF and many others great software ad free
software.
And there can be a time also when one will want to make money. Why
not ?
Ciao.
--
NP: "Multiverso" - Deus ex machina (Official video, Bologna, October
2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
2:24 p.m.
Can you still perform your 12 channel live electronic music composition
(with custom synthesis and signal processing routines) when it needs to be
ported to whatever the current hardware and OS platform is 20 years from
now?
If you use software that is actually written with standards compliance,
portability, and a commitment to open source principals the answer is yes.
I'm talking about stuff like GCC, Pure Data, Csound, snd, and the LADSPA
plugin standard.
If you use proprietary software the answer is most likely no. Especially
if the company that wrote the software no longer exists, and even if it did
the OS it was compiled for hasn't been supported for a decade, and even if
it was you don't remember where you left the dongle.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:54 AM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:08:36 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Can you use proprietary software without any
limits? Can you study the
source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
2) No. I want to make music, not dispute algorithms. When I put my
nose in source code is to get paid, to bring bread and butter to the
table. When I'm, not paid, I like to make music. And biking, and
various fun things.
3) No. See 2).
4) No. I believe people has a right to earn a living.
> You could very well sell your music made with
Open Source software.
> The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
> software itself.
I can assure that I can apply to my music any
license I want :-)
Exactly.
I chose a Creative Commons license Attribution,
Share alike
(CC-BY-SA) and I used this license to publish final mix, single
recordings tracks and Ardour project that are a sort of "source code"
of our music. This is my way to say thanks to developers who wrote
Ardour, Hydrogen, CALF and many others great software ad free
software.
And there can be a time also when one will want to make money. Why
not ?
Ciao.
--
NP: "Multiverso" - Deus ex machina (Official video, Bologna, October
2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
2:33 p.m.
Hey Robert!
I very much agree with you that sustainability is a strong point of free to
modify and distribute software. I don't think that it tells the whole
story, but yes, it is a very strong point.
The whole story is that most musicians, for instance, are not using open
source software. Yet somehow they are performing and writing music and
apparent lack of sustainability over the years is being managed just fine.
As for custom software, I actually would disagree that this is necessarily
a feature of open source. It is a feature of hobbyist software. It's just
that in today's word developer play field is usually set in an open source
environment. But definitely not all of it. For instance, amateur gaming
scene is largely proprietary.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Can you still perform your 12 channel live electronic
music composition
(with custom synthesis and signal processing routines) when it needs to be
ported to whatever the current hardware and OS platform is 20 years from
now?
If you use software that is actually written with standards compliance,
portability, and a commitment to open source principals the answer is yes.
I'm talking about stuff like GCC, Pure Data, Csound, snd, and the LADSPA
plugin standard.
If you use proprietary software the answer is most likely no. Especially
if the company that wrote the software no longer exists, and even if it did
the OS it was compiled for hasn't been supported for a decade, and even if
it was you don't remember where you left the dongle.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:54 AM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:08:36 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Can you use proprietary software without any
limits? Can you study the
source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
2) No. I want to make music, not dispute algorithms. When I put my
nose in source code is to get paid, to bring bread and butter to the
table. When I'm, not paid, I like to make music. And biking, and
various fun things.
3) No. See 2).
4) No. I believe people has a right to earn a living.
> You could very well sell your music made with
Open Source software.
> The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
> software itself.
I can assure that I can apply to my music any
license I want :-)
Exactly.
I chose a Creative Commons license Attribution,
Share alike
(CC-BY-SA) and I used this license to publish final mix, single
recordings tracks and Ardour project that are a sort of "source code"
of our music. This is my way to say thanks to developers who wrote
Ardour, Hydrogen, CALF and many others great software ad free
software.
And there can be a time also when one will want to make money. Why
not ?
Ciao.
--
NP: "Multiverso" - Deus ex machina (Official video, Bologna, October
2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
2:49 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:24:47 -0400
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can you still perform your 12 channel live electronic
music
composition (with custom synthesis and signal processing routines)
when it needs to be ported to whatever the current hardware and OS
platform is 20 years from now?
I would say yes. And if the company os going bankrupt, well, it will
be like trying to use rezound open source software today. Though
luck. It does not matter if it was excellent. One can grab the sources
and adapt them to the current libraries, fix things, etc. Own the
project ! But then again, it is also about making music.
If you use software that is actually written with
standards
compliance, portability, and a commitment to open source principals
the answer is yes. I'm talking about stuff like GCC, Pure Data,
Csound, snd, and the LADSPA plugin standard.
I do not use Csound, Pure Data nor snd. Might as well use emacs to
create music. I'm not into research. I'm into cave man, neanderthal.
I hit a pad it makes sound, OK.
If you use proprietary software the answer is most
likely no.
I differ. The lifetime of a company is as good as the lifetime of an
Open Source project. When Paul Davis will die, people will take over.
But how long will it fare as well ? It might, or might not. In that
case, there's Harrison in the background, though, so not so much of a
fair comparison, but the same can be applied to any other software.
If Bitwig dies, well, I will continue to use the one I have because it
works pretty good.
Especially if the company that wrote the software no
longer exists,
and even if it did the OS it was compiled for hasn't been supported
for a decade, and even if it was you don't remember where you left
the dongle.
What dongle ? I have spent $000 on proprietary musical software that
runs on Linux and still have no dongle. Am I missing something ?
--
NP: "Drum & Bass, "Harry" - Zanotti Alberghini Trotta live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdBqsBK_LCo
3:27 p.m.
Il 01/11/2016 14:54, jonetsu ha scritto:
Hi Jonetsu,
in most cases you have to pay to use proprietary software. I'm pretty
sure that this could be considered a limit ;-)
For the other 3 points you answered (more or less) "No, I don't care",
...but I care!
My questions come from the free software definition published by the
Free Software Foundation in 1986 and if, after 30 years the definition
is still there, I think that we can say that free software and
proprietary software are different.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
Can you use
proprietary software without any limits? Can you study the
> source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
> software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
3:54 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:27:45 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Il 01/11/2016 14:54, jonetsu ha scritto:
Hi Jonetsu,
in most cases you have to pay to use proprietary software. I'm pretty
sure that this could be considered a limit ;-)
Well, well... It is part of the terms of agreement to use the
software :) I do not consider it a limit as it is part of using it.
For instance using Open Source in a hardware product can be a limit. It
does not de facto equate limitless. If the proprietary application of
the hardware product uses (links against) a library with a certain Open
Source license, then it is an obligation to make available the source
code, which is not something one wishes to do an a competitive market.
Not to mention customers who might actually go through the code and
'reveal things' that will affect business. This example is outside of
the Linux music/audio domain, though.
Can you
use proprietary software without any limits? Can you study
the
> source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the
> proprietary software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
My questions come from the free software definition
published by the
Free Software Foundation in 1986 and if, after 30 years the definition
is still there, I think that we can say that free software and
proprietary software are different.
Yes indeed. Regarding this, there is a difference. Although it is not
about what was brought up so far in this thread. It is not possible te
redistribute commercial software because of the nature of that software
itself. It is more about how to earn a living from the hours and
hours one spent designing and implementing software, so that one's
family can have a house, food, and possible some kind of money stored
somewhere to provide for other things later.
This is not the goal of Open Source. I agree with community help and
all that. This is also important. And thus I agree with the Open
Source principles, but the reason of existence in the rest of the world
has to be ones that stand the test of co-existence. This co-existence
itself will be beneficial for Open Source and ultimately, the sharing
principles behind it.
In other words, if we take the second point:
"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour
(freedom 2)."
Yes, but the neighbour has a lock on his door and we do not consider
this as a breach of freedom.
--
NP: "La diversità di avere un'anima" - Deus ex Machina - live in Paris,
2008
4:19 p.m.
Il 01/11/2016 16:54, jonetsu ha scritto:
Well, well... It is part of the terms of agreement to
use the
software :) I do not consider it a limit as it is part of using it.
Hey, the GPL agreement doesn't ask me to pay anything. ;-)
does not de facto equate limitless. If the proprietary
application of
the hardware product uses (links against) a library with a certain Open
Source license, then it is an obligation to make available the source
code, which is not something one wishes to do an a competitive market.
This is the part of the GPL license I like most, and for the same reason
I published my music with the Share alike option! Wanna use my code?
...then reveal your code too.
itself. It is more about how to earn a living from
the hours and
hours one spent designing and implementing software, so that one's
family can have a house, food, and possible some kind of money stored
somewhere to provide for other things later.
I'm pretty sure that all the 72 developer contributors of Ardour has
something to eat at dinner ;-)
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
4:45 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:19:33 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Il 01/11/2016 16:54, jonetsu ha scritto:
> Well, well... It is part of the terms of agreement to use the
> software :) I do not consider it a limit as it is part of using it.
Hey, the GPL agreement doesn't ask me to pay
anything. ;-)
But it asks you to share the code of the product you have paid $350,000
to develop.
This is the part of the GPL license I like most, and
for the same
reason I published my music with the Share alike option! Wanna use my
code? ...then reveal your code too.
This is where, I think fantasy comes in.
I'm pretty sure that all the 72 developer
contributors of Ardour has
something to eat at dinner ;-)
Certainly not from the Ardour project, so this is largely irrelevant.
At US$5543.00/month average it could pay for 72 10kg bags of white rice,
and some cheese, and then next month, some vegetables :) But the
housing is a real problem. Not easy to rent/buy a place at less than
$50 per month.
This is to say, no wonder there are no fabulous sound producing
synthesizers in Open Source. In the plural. As soon as one as toiled
countless, pay less, months on finding algorithms and optimizing them,
then other months to design a suitable nice and enticing user
interface, and then other months on stabilizing the whole thing, one
naturally wonders, why do I have to count grains of rice everyday ?
What is the taste of tomatoes, I have forgotten. Not to mention
crotonese.
That is full time. Now, if one works in the evening and weekends, in
teams that also do likewise, because for instance they need a roof for
protection against the elements :) Since you mentioned Ardour, Paul
Davis currently resides, if I'm not mistaken, in a Sprinter van with his
wife, until June 2017. Which is quite neat, I must say, although I
thought of bringing it up here just for to add a coloration.
Then on nights and weekends only, it would take years and years to come
up with anything competitive at the creation and sensitivity level, of
commercial soft synths out there. Again, in the plural.
So I consider that a fair amount of all that lies somewhere in a fantasy
world of sorts. These arguments do not co-exist realistically in the
world today.
2:35 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, jonetsu wrote:
No difference at all. None whatsoever.
It is amazing how the context is extrapolated and hyped to sustain
an activism of 'us and them'.
The context is Linux audio/music. Not illuminati vs. human nature or
some such.
Why shoot in one's own foot ?
Every sentence that you have written, quoted above, can be matched
equally by proprietary offerings. No difference at all, apart from the
name of the software products, and the number of people.
Every single notion brought in your text can be matched by u-he,
Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial products
that runs on Linux.
Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in Ardour are there because
someone who was outside of the development team looked at the code and
added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour developer :)
Now I may have taken your quote slightly out of context (I am not talking
security here) but there is a difference between open and closed
development. Closed development the user decides if the tool works for
them and uses it or not. With open projects, even if a user can't code, if
they put their ideas for new features out in public, the main developer
may not be interested or have time, but some other person may.
no difference at all? none whatever? A bit of an over statement.
Really, a good studio machine should be used only for music and not be
connected to outside networks anyway. It should not have a pile of desktop
applications on it. Have another machine for that. Open or closed, if the
tool works for you, use it. If the idea that all your code is open helps
you, use it. If you don't care that's fine too.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
3:06 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
> Every single notion brought in your text can be
matched by u-he,
> Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial
> products that runs on Linux.
Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in Ardour
are there
because someone who was outside of the development team looked at the
code and added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour
developer :)
It is not easy to say. It is backed up. Go through the threads :
u-he
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31
Bitwig
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=259
Renoise/Redux
http://forum.renoise.com/
Harrison
http://mixbus.harrisonconsoles.com/forum/forum-2.html
And then there are the private support emails, about which I have no
complaints.
Now I may have taken your quote slightly out of
context (I am not
talking security here) but there is a difference between open and
closed development. Closed development the user decides if the tool
works for them and uses it or not. With open projects, even if a user
can't code, if they put their ideas for new features out in public,
the main developer may not be interested or have time, but some other
person may.
As you can see from above feedback is also important with closed source
in the context we are concerned with which is Linux music/audio.
u-he even asked people to send them good and bad reverb data (codes) to
help in finding algorithms:
https://www.u-he.com/cms/protoverb
As for the time, it is much of the same with the other guys. Chances
are still slim in Open Source to have someone saying after reading a
post that's a great idea I will implement it. Then there will be
discussions with leads and they might refuse. They might say that's
not good code. They might say we have other plans, It's not as easy
as saying the principle entails.
Really, a good studio machine should be used only for
music and not
be connected to outside networks anyway. It should not have a pile of
desktop applications on it. Have another machine for that. Open or
closed, if the tool works for you, use it. If the idea that all your
code is open helps you, use it. If you don't care that's fine too.
I agree with this, for a studio. Since it's strictly about work
and not searching the internet for this or that or reading threads about
how to mix, or what good is such a plugin or so. That is done
elsewhere at another time. In a studio, when work and money is
concerned, there is no place for software modifications, though.
--
NP: "Duo Improbabile" - Virginia Guastella e Claudio Trotta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHw06J44f58
4:29 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, jonetsu wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
... etc. etc.
> Every single notion brought in your text can
be matched by u-he,
> Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial
> products that runs on Linux.
Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in
Ardour are there
because someone who was outside of the development team looked at the
code and added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour
developer :)
It is not easy to say. It is backed up. Go through the threads :
u-he
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31 And then there are the private support emails, about
which I have no
complaints.
Not what I said at all. I should have known from past replys not to bother
saying anything. jonetsu to spam box...
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
4:50 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, jonetsu wrote:
The reply is exactly to what you have said. You have said that people
outside of the development team looked at the code and added a feature.
With all considerations of commercial software taken into account, the
examples given in the reply do listen to what people, users, say.
perhaps even more so than in Open Source sine their income depends
directly on it. The food on the table depends on it.
Furthermore, it is not streamlined as I will a dd a feature to the
software project because I think it is good. It does not work exactly
like that, which is a limited vision. "Chances are still slim in Open
Source to have someone saying after reading a post that's a great idea
I will implement it. Then there will be discussions with leads and
they might refuse. They might say that's not good code. They might
say we have other plans, It's not as easy as saying the principle
entails."
I stand by the reply.
I do not block on spam box, I always keep it Open.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
... etc. etc.
> Every single notion brought in your text can
be matched by u-he,
> Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial
> products that runs on Linux.
Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in
Ardour are there
because someone who was outside of the development team looked at
the code and added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour
developer :)
It is not easy to say. It is backed up. Go through the threads :
u-he
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31 And then there are the private support emails,
about which I have no
complaints.
Not what I said at all. I should have known from past replys not to
bother saying anything. jonetsu to spam box...
5:55 p.m.
Massimo!
"Hey, the GPL agreement doesn't ask me to pay anything. ;-)"
It seems that the only limitation you really care about is money.
1. This has little to do with free and proprietary software. Proprietary
software
can be free (and huge amounts of it is). Open Source could be paid
(it rarely is).
2. Money is not the only limitation possible in life. GPL is a very strict,
non-permissive license. The only license that is truly fully permissive
is CC0. If you are using a CC Attribution Share Alike, you are forcing
me to share my product as well.
This is a limitation and I frequently decide not to use someone's work
because they say it should not be used in a commercial product. If I
want to sell my music at Bandcamp, I cannot use this work.
I think it is your right to license your products however you want, but
you cannot claim that there are no limitations simply because you are
not asking for money.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:50 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, jonetsu wrote:
The reply is exactly to what you have said. You have said that people
outside of the development team looked at the code and added a feature.
With all considerations of commercial software taken into account, the
examples given in the reply do listen to what people, users, say.
perhaps even more so than in Open Source sine their income depends
directly on it. The food on the table depends on it.
Furthermore, it is not streamlined as I will a dd a feature to the
software project because I think it is good. It does not work exactly
like that, which is a limited vision. "Chances are still slim in Open
Source to have someone saying after reading a post that's a great idea
I will implement it. Then there will be discussions with leads and
they might refuse. They might say that's not good code. They might
say we have other plans, It's not as easy as saying the principle
entails."
I stand by the reply.
I do not block on spam box, I always keep it Open.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
... etc. etc.
> Every single notion brought in your text can
be matched by u-he,
> Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial
> products that runs on Linux.
Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in
Ardour are there
because someone who was outside of the development team looked at
the code and added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour
developer :)
It is not easy to say. It is backed up. Go through the threads :
u-he
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31 And then there are the private support emails,
about which I have no
complaints.
Not what I said at all. I should have known from past replys not to
bother saying anything. jonetsu to spam box...
6:27 p.m.
Hey Louigi!
Il 01/11/2016 18:55, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
It seems that the only limitation you really care
about is money.
No, it's not! The page of my website in which I talk about the
philosophy of my musical project is called "Free as in freedom".
I do care about freedom.
http://johnoption.org/?page_id=9
1. This has little to do with free and proprietary
software. Proprietary
software
can be free (and huge amounts of it is). Open Source could be paid
(it rarely is).
Right!
2. Money is not the only limitation possible in life.
GPL is a very strict,
non-permissive license. The only license that is truly fully permissive
is CC0. If you are using a CC Attribution Share Alike, you are forcing
me to share my product as well.
Forcing you to share your product as well is what I want to do!
This is a limitation and I frequently decide not to
use someone's work
because they say it should not be used in a commercial product. If I
want to sell my music at Bandcamp, I cannot use this work.
I feel that if I use free software, free music, free culture etc... I
should give back something.
I think it is your right to license your products
however you want, but
you cannot claim that there are no limitations simply because you are
not asking for money.
I agree.
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
7:05 p.m.
Got ya, thanks for clarifying.
Just for the record, most of my works are actually released under CC0. Not
all websites allow that (and not all jurisdictions). So on many websites I
release in some form of CC.
While I do really want for people to release more works that are shareable,
I can also recognize that problematics of proprietary software are pretty
different as opposed to problematics of free cultural works. I apologize
for hinting at a future article, but I do explain my views on it there. I
do plan to complete the article this year.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Hey Louigi!
Il 01/11/2016 18:55, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
It seems that the only limitation you really care
about is money.
No, it's not! The page of my website in which I talk about the
philosophy of my musical project is called "Free as in freedom".
I do care about freedom.
http://johnoption.org/?page_id=9
1. This has little to do with free and
proprietary software. Proprietary
software
can be free (and huge amounts of it is). Open Source could be paid
(it rarely is).
Right!
2. Money is not the only limitation possible in
life. GPL is a very
strict,
non-permissive license. The only license that is
truly fully permissive
is CC0. If you are using a CC Attribution Share Alike, you are forcing
me to share my product as well.
Forcing you to share your product as well is what I want to do!
This is a limitation and I frequently decide not
to use someone's work
because they say it should not be used in a commercial product. If I
want to sell my music at Bandcamp, I cannot use this work.
I feel that if I use free software, free music, free culture etc... I
should give back something.
I think it is your right to license your products
however you want, but
you cannot claim that there are no limitations simply because you are
not asking for money.
I agree.
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
10:13 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:27:50 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
The page of my website in which I talk about the
philosophy of my musical project is called "Free as in freedom".
I do care about freedom.
Strange freedom where one is obliged to do certain things when re-using.
"You must give appropriate credit by writing ..."
"you must distribute your contributions under the same license"
I can get a sample pack and use anything without having to give credit,
and without to perpetuate the same licensing.
For a user, which one has more freedom ?
> 2. Money is not the only limitation possible in
life. GPL is a very
> strict, non-permissive license. The only license that is truly
> fully permissive is CC0. If you are using a CC Attribution Share
> Alike, you are forcing me to share my product as well.
Forcing you to share your product as well is what I
want to do!
Tell that to someone who has invested $350,000 in developing a product.
I feel that if I use free software, free music, free
culture etc... I
should give back something.
I feel that while there is life in me I feel sharing because this is
life essence of interaction.
In the context of music, no arguments so far made it for Open Source.
They all sound like some fantasy land where unknown people spontaneously
add features to Open Source software because they read about a good
idea in a forum; where musicians spends countless hours of learning
software code; where bugs gets fixed by those same unknown people
because they read it in a forum and wanted to Share in this Fantasy,
and so on so forth.
Of course no so much of that happens. Any serious projects has
guidelines, aims, goals. Software functions and functionality cannot
be spawned like a Hydra, if not it becomes a nightmare to maintain and
prevents evolution. No musician spends months of studying code.
Insisting on these aspects only, IMHO, blocks mainstream investment in
the platform, for the music domain (not talking servers nor embedded
here), by coming across like uprooted, not having to earn a living,
fantasy-like and, not so much freedom as dissension is quite often
frowned apart by Holders of the Knowledge 'star' figures who would
perhaps found themselves at ease chasing witches in a past century :)
There must be better arguments to have Open Source in the music domain,
isn't it ?
Cheers.
2 Nov
2 Nov
6:38 a.m.
Il 01/11/2016 23:12, jonetsu ha scritto:
"you must distribute your contributions under the
same license"
I'm pretty sure that today we have so many amazing free software thanks
to this restriction of the GPL license that is there in the license
since 1989.
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
12:07 p.m.
"I'm pretty sure that today we have so many amazing free software thanks
to this restriction of the GPL license that is there in the license
since 1989."
Of course, because GPL forces hobbyists to also release their programs under
GPL, a lot of hobbyist software is now GPL.
However, you smuggled the word "amazing" in there. I see no link between
GPL and software being "amazing", unless by amazing you mean that it is
"free".
In a way this is a tautology. Because software is released under GPL and
forces all other projects that use it to also be GPL, we have a lot GPL
software.
Of course. But I would need some evidence that this is somehow important.
Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of hobbyist developers who
are writing great software and not making it "free" or even open-source.
And the
world doesn't end.
Take for example one of the greatest Doom II level editors, Doom Builder
<http://www.doombuilder.com/>. This
is a hobbyist piece of software. It is free as in free beer. It is of
extremely high
quality. Yet it is closed source and proprietary.
And notice, in regards to its sustainability, Microsoft itself makes sure
programs
are backwards and forwards compatible for as long as possible. Doom Builder
has been available for years and the fact that it is proprietary did not
keep it
from being available.
In a way, the Linux ecosystem, by being so unstable and prone to constant
changes
that are compatibility-careless has created the problem it is not claiming
to be
in such a good position to solve. Proprietary operating systems don't need
a crowd
of hobbyist developers looking through code to make sure things are still
working
under new Windows, because most of the time it is working.
So, again, the fact that software is "free" is irrelevant until you prove
that it is
somehow good. Not that this argument cannot be made, but the truth of the
matter
is that the utility of "free" software is of limited relevance. It is very
helpful to
one group of people, but utterly unimportant to the other. It is useful in
one
situation, but completely useless in another.
Stallman's argument is ethical. He tries to prove that proprietary software
is evil,
therefore, "free" software is good, regardless of any of the practical
nuances. I
don't buy his arguments.
One thing he says is that "free" software allows people to learn and to
share.
Perhaps. But proprietary software allows to do that as well. There are
other ways
to learn, but taking someone else's program and studying the code.
In fact, I would argue it is better to go through a tutorial or read a book
then try
to study someone else's code. Looking through code not written by yourself
is
very ineffective.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
2:12 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:07:18 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Of course. But I would need some evidence that this is
somehow
important.
One important thing in being able to read source code (as that would be
linked to the GPL) is the possibility to go through actual working code
and not only examples.
Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of
hobbyist
developers who are writing great software and not making it "free" or
even open-source. And the world doesn't end.
There is one thing, as I just replied to Massimo, is that at the
beginning, and for quite some time until today, a lot of professionals
supported the Linux project with code. Being professionals, they
injected a way of doing things that is far from the hobbyist (if you
compare for instance with many (not all) Windows freeware). This has
tainted the movement since the early days. This dedication to make
something good. Might not be great, but well done.
And notice, in regards to its sustainability,
Microsoft itself makes
sure programs are backwards and forwards compatible for as long as
possible.
Hmmmm.... IBM yes, Microsoft, not so. So many companies stick to
older MS software because of the problems linked to upgrading, for
instance.
In a way, the Linux ecosystem, by being so unstable
and prone to
constant changes
that are compatibility-careless has created the problem it is not
claiming to be in such a good position to solve.
An upgrade can contain instabilities, when all the many different parts
are considered, as well as their interactions. Not to mention
dependencies put into packaging systems. This is why the notion that
was mentioned here, in the context of proprietary vs. Open Source, that
someone reading a forum can decide to implement a function in a
software, or to fix a bug, is largely fantasy. It happens, but not so
much. Not an argument to bring forth when comparing to companies.
Because if people start to implement stuff and fix bugs without forking
their own projects, it will lead to SW maintenance hell and will
prevent eventually further developments.
One thing he says is that "free" software
allows people to learn and
to share.
Perhaps. But proprietary software allows to do that as well. There are
other ways
to learn, but taking someone else's program and studying the code.
In fact, I would argue it is better to go through a
tutorial or read
a book then try
to study someone else's code. Looking through code not written by
yourself is very ineffective.
The optimized way is a combination of both. Only source code can be
tenuous and actually taking more time, depending on the complexity of
the subject. After the notions are learned, having working, from the
field, software code to go through can be beneficial. In a sense this
has to do with not having to reinvent the wheel. The quality of the
code also matters and this brings back the professional inspiration
that supported (supports) Linux for quite some time.
Still, this is no argument for the musician to choose Linux. There
must be some good reasons...
Cheers.
1:53 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:38:26 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that today we have so many amazing
free software
thanks to this restriction of the GPL license that is there in the
license since 1989.
When compared to Windows freeware of the 90s, one difference with Linux
software is the level of seriousness and dedication. Because many
professionals were supporting the movement and yes, the distribution of
source code as well as documentation (when it was not the source code
itself).
And this principle has spread undoubtedly to musical/audio
applications. If I was to write a jackd application I would get to the
documentation, but I would also look into some existing applications.
It always nice to have working code rather than only examples.
So this would be the first real argument for Open Source in Linux
audio and music and developing software. Everything you want to know is
there, you just have to go for it.
For the musician, though, the argument does not hold. Why would a
musician choose the Linux platform apart from not having/willing to
spend money ? A musician that creates, arranges and mixes music, not a
SW guy that makes "sounds on the side" when there is free time from SW
tasks.
What would make a musician choose Linux ?
Cheers.
2:53 p.m.
Il 02/11/2016 14:53, jonetsu ha scritto:
What would make a musician choose Linux ?
Mmmm... it's not easy to find the answer to your question, probably
because there are many reasons for a musician to choose (or not) Linux.
I record my music with Linux because is the system I like most, and
because with Ardour, Hydrogen and some great plugins I can do what I
want to do.
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
4:19 p.m.
I disagree that reading someone's code is a good way to educate yourself.
I am a developer myself. If I need to solve something, I might go read the
documentation and, yes, examples, or watch a tutorial, or ask a question on
a forum or Stack Overflow. Very-very rarely would I need to look at the
code of someone's program. Very rarely. In fact, I don't remember last time
I had to do it.
Another good way to learn is to go work for a company.
In fact, most people in the world are using proprietary software and never
were part of a Linux or open source community and yet they know how to
program. If looking at code was the only way to learn code, all Linux
hobbyists would be the only ones in the world who know how to code, but
this is clearly not the case.
So, I disagree that you need open source projects to learn. What you need
is a community, not open sourced programs.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Il 02/11/2016 14:53, jonetsu ha scritto:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
What would make a musician choose Linux ?
Mmmm... it's not easy to find the answer to your question, probably
because there are many reasons for a musician to choose (or not) Linux.
I record my music with Linux because is the system I like most, and
because with Ardour, Hydrogen and some great plugins I can do what I
want to do.
Ciao,
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4:29 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:19:01 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree that reading someone's code is a good
way to educate
yourself.
Another good way to learn is to go work for a company.
... In which case it will be very likely that browsing through the
existing code will be done. One does not want necessarily to do
things very differently. And if one chooses to do so, it will be
because browsing through the existing code was done and observations
were noted.
So, I disagree that you need open source projects to
learn. What you
need is a community, not open sourced programs.
Yes, although I remember when I did not know about Linux and was
working in Windows with MSDN documentation and just about no working
source code. Sure, you it is possible to learn everything, but there's
also an aspect of time and getting things done. And, not reinventing
the wheel. If it's already done, and done in a good way, which ignore
it and spend the time doing it again to possibly have only a slight
optimization if any at all ?
In this regard, having working., from-the-field source code is
beneficial. Now, this is not specifically linked to Open Source
perhaps, but as the name implies, Open Source is... access to code.
If I may be perceived as being not for Open Source, this is not
correct. I am for Open Source. What I have something about, is
following Phil's statement in the magazine for the reasons a musician
would use Open Source, as it was mentioned at the beginning of this
thread.
Still looking for a good reason why a *musician* would use Linux .... :)
10:55 p.m.
Congrats Yassin, I enjoyed reading the interview :-)
But, what kind of a discussion has this become!?
jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> schrieb am Mi., 2. Nov. 2016 um 17:29 Uhr:
What I have something about, is
following Phil's statement in the magazine for the reasons a musician
would use Open Source, as it was mentioned at the beginning of this
thread.
Hmm, afaict he never gave any reasons why *a musician* would or should use
Open Source. He simply told the interviewer why *he* likes to use Open
Source software for *his* music. That's all. And that was all he was asked
for.
11:12 p.m.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 22:55:14 +0000
Felix Homann <linuxaudio(a)showlabor.de> wrote:
Hmm, afaict he never gave any reasons why *a musician*
would or
should use Open Source. He simply told the interviewer why *he* likes
to use Open Source software for *his* music. That's all. And that was
all he was asked for.
The most important aspect of Linux audio.
Textually:
"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?
Because I just don't trust proprietary code. Call me paranoid, but in
reality I'm just lazy :) I like to know that somebody, somewhere, and
preferably me, has read the code that I execute. But this is only one
reason. I find the proprietary world a PITA of dongles, cracks download
sites and talkative installers. I prefer to talk to the coding team
through a bugtracker than to "contact technical services". I want to
re-install a studio machine in one command that will pull everything I
need ; I want to spend more time doing just music.
It's basic hygiene. I use FLOSS, I write FLOSS code, and that's it."
So then what's wrong with proprietary code in Linux, etc, etc.
11:21 p.m.
jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> schrieb am Do., 3. Nov. 2016, 00:13:
The most important aspect of Linux audio.
For *him*.
Textually:
"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?
See the "for you" part of the question?
11:34 p.m.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:20:58 +0000
Felix Homann <linuxaudio(a)showlabor.de> wrote:
jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> schrieb am Do.,
3. Nov. 2016, 00:13:
That's right. Genau.
The most important aspect of Linux audio.
For *him*. > Textually:
>
> "Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the
> most important aspect of Linux audio?
>
See the "for you" part of the question?
See the publicly posted magazine article ?
6:06 p.m.
On 01.11.2016 14:07, Louigi Verona wrote:
*Can you modify the proprietary software?* Nope.
However, neither can I
modify open source software. I am not a programmer, therefore theoretical
ability to modify, say, my favorite looper Kluppe is quite irrelevant to
me. I tried asking developers for help - nobody could do it. Period. For me
virtually zero difference. Kluppe might as well had been proprietary.
On 02.11.2016 17:19, Louigi Verona wrote:
I am a developer myself. If I need to solve something,
I might go read the
documentation and, yes, examples, or watch a tutorial, or ask a question on a
forum or Stack Overflow. Very-very rarely would I need to look at the code of
someone's program. Very rarely. In fact, I don't remember last time I had to do
it.
This two statements of yours seem slightly contradictory.
Are you a developer or not?
If you don't know for sure, one could argue that you most probably are not and
thus may actually have disqualified yourself in the matter of comparing learning
techniques in software development...
7:29 p.m.
There are many kinds of developers. I am not a desktop developer, I am a
web developer. I was a professional web dev for many years, now I am a
hobbyist and code for my own needs.
So, while I know how to write for the web and how to write PHP, JavaScript,
work with MySQL and stuff, I know very little about doing anything on the
desktop (apart from coding some games, usually with the help of frameworks).
But you actually raised a very good point in that being a developer does
not mean you are a developer of everything.
Therefore, open source desktop DSP program written in C++ is only relevant
to a person who knows DSP coding on the desktop using C++. So, a given open
source program is potentially interested only to a segment of developer
community.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Hanspeter Portner <
dev(a)open-music-kontrollers.ch> wrote:
On 01.11.2016 14:07, Louigi Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
*Can you modify the proprietary software?* Nope.
However, neither can I
modify open source software. I am not a programmer, therefore theoretical
ability to modify, say, my favorite looper Kluppe is quite irrelevant to
me. I tried asking developers for help - nobody could do it. Period. For
me
virtually zero difference. Kluppe might as well
had been proprietary.
On 02.11.2016 17:19, Louigi Verona wrote:
I am a developer myself. If I need to solve
something, I might go read
the
documentation and, yes, examples, or watch a
tutorial, or ask a question
on a
forum or Stack Overflow. Very-very rarely would I
need to look at the
code of
someone's program. Very rarely. In fact, I
don't remember last time I
had to do it.
This two statements of yours seem slightly contradictory.
Are you a developer or not?
If you don't know for sure, one could argue that you most probably are not
and
thus may actually have disqualified yourself in the matter of comparing
learning
techniques in software development...
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:18 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016, Louigi Verona wrote:
Therefore, open source desktop DSP program written in
C++ is only relevant to a
person who knows DSP coding on the desktop using C++. So, a given open source
program is potentially interested only to a segment of developer community.
Nope, not true at all. With a knowledge of c (mostly K&R to boot), reading
and changing code in an audio application helped me to learn c++ (with
help from c++ references). SOmething I was unable to do using courses,
tutorials, books references, etc. (I tried). Not only that the c++ I
learned was not in any way to do with GUIs, yet with that start I was able
to then create my own projects in c++ with GUIs. Language is language,
sometimes things don't work the way that makes sense. I now choose c++
over c just for ease of debugging.... the other thing that helps with
learning is mistakes. Make lots of them and you will learn faster... well
I do anyway.
We all learn differently.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
8:28 p.m.
Hey Len!
Yeah, I totally agree. But C and C++ are similar. My point was that
programming as a sphere is not homogeneous. You can be a great database
programmer, but not know how to code graphics, for example.
Also, actual work of course helps. I would have to think how to formulate
my thought more carefully.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016, Louigi Verona wrote:
Therefore, open source desktop DSP program written in C++ is only relevant
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
to a
person who knows DSP coding on the desktop using C++. So, a given open
source
program is potentially interested only to a segment of developer
community.
Nope, not true at all. With a knowledge of c (mostly K&R to boot), reading
and changing code in an audio application helped me to learn c++ (with help
from c++ references). SOmething I was unable to do using courses,
tutorials, books references, etc. (I tried). Not only that the c++ I
learned was not in any way to do with GUIs, yet with that start I was able
to then create my own projects in c++ with GUIs. Language is language,
sometimes things don't work the way that makes sense. I now choose c++ over
c just for ease of debugging.... the other thing that helps with learning
is mistakes. Make lots of them and you will learn faster... well I do
anyway.
We all learn differently.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
9 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:28:36 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I totally agree. But C and C++ are similar.
This is also not right. C++ has object orientation. Classes and
methods can be defined, as well as Design Patterns applied. Moreover,
as object orientation can be somewhat done in many programming
languages, the C++ compiler, for one, supports direct OO mechanisms.
Using C++ without object orientation is very lame and is sometimes the
result of manager directives that says so. The manager throws C++ to
the guys, we should be using this now, so do it. And the guys start to
code in C, but using C++ compiler. Very lame.
7:34 p.m.
On 11/02/2016 04:19 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
I disagree that reading someone's code is a good
way to educate yourself.
and i disagree in return.
fwiw. on all my life, to which i consider myself one fully and
accomplished world-class coder, i couldn't ever get on all this way and
up to this point, ever educated as much without reading someone else's
code to the least. whether from youngest or oldest heads, as both have a
lot and same amount of teachings and learning to come by. there's one
thing you have to learn and pay if you don't: never, ever underestimate
someone's code.
and fyi. i have managed to do it on way too many mission critical,
enterprise and corporate development, with way too many coding fellows,
and as you might well know, also to the free and open-source community
at large.
i can't even think why you made up that phrase to start with. it's,
complete and utterly wrong. sorry to tell.
byee
--
rncbc aka. Rui Nuno Capela
8:26 p.m.
Rui, let me, taking your experience into account, but at the same time not
discarding mine, reformulate my previous statement:
Studying someone's code is not the ONLY way to educate yourself.
Also, by not studying code I don't mean literally not seeing someone's
code, but that usually you need only a small portion of it. For me this was
true, I find no difficulty in agreeing that my experience is different from
other people's.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc(a)rncbc.org> wrote:
On 11/02/2016 04:19 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
I disagree that reading someone's code is a
good way to educate yourself.
and i disagree in return.
fwiw. on all my life, to which i consider myself one fully and
accomplished world-class coder, i couldn't ever get on all this way and
up to this point, ever educated as much without reading someone else's
code to the least. whether from youngest or oldest heads, as both have a
lot and same amount of teachings and learning to come by. there's one
thing you have to learn and pay if you don't: never, ever underestimate
someone's code.
and fyi. i have managed to do it on way too many mission critical,
enterprise and corporate development, with way too many coding fellows,
and as you might well know, also to the free and open-source community
at large.
i can't even think why you made up that phrase to start with. it's,
complete and utterly wrong. sorry to tell.
byee
--
rncbc aka. Rui Nuno Capela
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:02 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:26:42 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Rui, let me, taking your experience into account, but
at the same
time not discarding mine, reformulate my previous statement:
Studying someone's code is not the ONLY way to educate yourself.
Also, by not studying code I don't mean literally not seeing someone's
code, but that usually you need only a small portion of it. For me
this was true, I find no difficulty in agreeing that my experience is
different from other people's.
When studying (and it says 'studying') code then the need is to
understand deeply algorithms. In which case this cannot be done be
reading only small portions.
Have you actually done reverse engineering of complex code ?
9:07 p.m.
On 11/02/2016 08:26 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Rui, let me, taking your experience into account, but
at the same time
not discarding mine, reformulate my previous statement:
Studying someone's code is not the ONLY way to educate yourself.
yeah, maybe not the only way to do it wrong, that's for certain
may i ask you how do you ever learn to speak and understand the least of
any language at all? don't you have to hear (thus look into code for
that matter) and reproduce even though a mockup at first?
unless you're the creator of the language, which i'm sure very few
humans can brag on that, you always have to look into someone's "code",
even before thinking on developing on it--any language, any code,
lexical, grammar, syntax, or style, be that an idiom, dialect or just
accent.
cheers
--
rncbc aka. Rui Nuno Capela
10:29 p.m.
Gentlemen,
Let me remind what we are discussing here and reformulate my thesis with
greater clarity.
The claim that I was responding to was this - the benefit of open source is
that it allows people to learn, whereas proprietary software does not allow
one to do so.
My counter-argument is that looking at complete code of someone's program
is not the only way to learn, and, in my current view, not even the most
effective.
To unwrap that, if I am writing a game and I need to know how to write a
javascript random number generator, I don't need to scan complete code of
someone else's program. I need only one part - the random number generator
algorithm.
I do not argue against the notion that studying someone else's complete
code is very useful. I am saying that this is not necessarily the only or
even main way. There are many other ways to learn.
And even if we are often learning by looking at parts of someone's code,
this program does not have to be open source. I personally have learned to
program by looking at proprietary code while working in a company and then
learning things by asking questions on forums, using functions, submitted
by people and adopted from their usually proprietary software. Only once in
my web development career did I have to literally go through the whole code
of a phpBB forum. But by that time I already knew how to code.
In other words, I am not arguing that looking at someone's code is
unnecessary, I am arguing that having complete code of a program is usually
not required to learn to code. It is good sometimes, perhaps it is very
useful, but this is not necessary. Many people learn to program without
being exposed to a complete open source project.
Another important point is that when you are working in a company, other
people's code is not the only thing that teaches you. Often, there are also
people in the company who will actually walk you though the code. Just
having the code available is not necessarily helpful.
How can my argument be defeated? With evidence. It would be interesting to
see stats on major contributions to learning to code. If this data
contradicts my argument - I would definitely follow the evidence.
But using "background knowledge" about the world, it seems to me that most
people know little about open source and are unlikely to learn by opening a
program they like and start reading through the code.
I could be wrong and maybe majority of people do exactly that. but I am not
aware of any such stats, neither am I aware of how this could help a novice
learn to code. I had to change things in a complex C++ program written by
one of my science professors. It did not teach me anything. But it would be
wrong, of course, to make generalizations based solely on my own experience.
An interesting thread
<https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-best-ways-to-learn-programming>
at Quora on how people learn to code and advices people give. So far I see
no advice like "open an open source program and look at its code".
And, finally, to address Rui's point:
"unless you're the creator of the language, which i'm sure very few
humans can brag on that, you always have to look into someone's "code",
even before thinking on developing on it--any language, any code,
lexical, grammar, syntax, or style, be that an idiom, dialect or just
accent."
I agree that you have to look at someone's code. But, using your language
analogy, I don't think that I can learn Spanish by opening someone's book
and trying to read through it. I would actually start with a textbook and
simplistic texts.
So, I am not arguing against not looking at anyone's code. I am saying that
you don't need complete open source programs for that and if a person is
never once exposed to any open source "free" software projects, he has
dozens of methods to learn to code and I, in fact, argue that looking at
open source projects is not the most common way of doing it. Remember, I am
arguing against the fact that "free" software is so good, because it is
(presumably) the only/best way to learn.
I argue it is *a* way to learn. And it is not a strong argument to justify
GPL software as a necessary thing.
And, finally, people rarely "know a programming language". You still know
only parts of it and only certain applications. Even if you know a lot
about C++, it is applied differently to graphics, it is applied differently
to GUI, differently to sound, differently to text, compression, databases,
etc. Each application requires specialized knowledge.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc(a)rncbc.org> wrote:
On 11/02/2016 08:26 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
Rui, let me, taking your experience into account,
but at the same time
not discarding mine, reformulate my previous statement:
Studying someone's code is not the ONLY way to educate yourself.
yeah, maybe not the only way to do it wrong, that's for certain
may i ask you how do you ever learn to speak and understand the least of
any language at all? don't you have to hear (thus look into code for
that matter) and reproduce even though a mockup at first?
unless you're the creator of the language, which i'm sure very few
humans can brag on that, you always have to look into someone's "code",
even before thinking on developing on it--any language, any code,
lexical, grammar, syntax, or style, be that an idiom, dialect or just
accent.
cheers
--
rncbc aka. Rui Nuno Capela
10:54 p.m.
On 11/02/2016 10:29 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
I agree that you have to look at someone's code. But, using your
language analogy, I don't think that I can learn Spanish by opening
someone's book and trying to read through it. I would actually start
with a textbook and simplistic texts.
whether it's a textbook or a simplistic text, it's "source-code" in that
very sense. it is someone's else code that you're looking into anyway, duh?
you DO learn on it and it IS the most effective way to
do-it-fast-and-right(tm). compare that to trial-and-error... some may
call it clean-room reverse-engineering, whatever, but let's face it:
it's the worst way of learning about anything, believe me. enough
evidence for me.
whether it's better to learn from public, free/open-source code or from
private/closed-source, which isn't available to start with, it's just
pure nonsense.
cheers
--
rncbc aka. Rui Nuno Capela
10:59 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 23:29:31 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To unwrap that, if I am writing a game and I need to
know how to
write a javascript random number generator, I don't need to scan
complete code of someone else's program. I need only one part - the
random number generator algorithm.
If you only need to buy carrots, why would you spend 30 minutes waling
up and down all aisles in a supermarket ?
Hopefully you will get a RNG from a library instead, isn't that the
case.
In other words, I am not arguing that looking at
someone's code is
unnecessary, I am arguing that having complete code of a program is
usually not required to learn to code.
I suspect 'learn to code' has something to do with a previous statement
about C++ being like C. Using C++ in 3 days.
It is good sometimes, perhaps
it is very useful, but this is not necessary. Many people learn to
program without being exposed to a complete open source project.
Open Source provides free source code to everyone. The movement was
pushed by many professionals. This is not Windows freeware.
Another important point is that when you are working
in a company,
other people's code is not the only thing that teaches you. Often,
there are also people in the company who will actually walk you
though the code. Just having the code available is not necessarily
helpful.
Why is this downgraded to a comparison between corporate settings and
Open Source ?
The original question was:
"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?"
How can my argument be defeated? With evidence. It
would be
interesting to see stats on major contributions to learning to code.
If this data contradicts my argument - I would definitely follow the
evidence.
Again, 'learning to code' is kinda suspicious.
But using "background knowledge" about the
world, it seems to me that
most people know little about open source and are unlikely to learn
by opening a program they like and start reading through the code.
Then these future developers, designers of software, are missing
something. Outsourcing in sight ?
And, finally, people rarely "know a programming
language". You still
know only parts of it and only certain applications. Even if you know
a lot about C++,
You mean about object orientation ?
it is applied differently to graphics, it is applied
differently to GUI, differently to sound, differently to text,
compression, databases, etc. Each application requires specialized
knowledge.
That specialized knowledge is not a function of the language. A
carpenter can be Chinese, one can program compression bits in
assembler, one can write middleware in Erlang.
11:09 p.m.
"I suspect 'learn to code' has something to do with a previous statement
about C++ being like C. Using C++ in 3 days."
Haha! By saying that it is "like C" I did not mean that it is *exactly*
like C++. I know that C++ is a very different language and I know the C++
object oriented approach. It exists in PHP as well.
By being "like C" I meant that you can read code and at least understand
something. If you look at Assembly code knowing only C, you would not
understand a thing.
And while I cannot name myself a C++ programmer, I did code a lot in C++,
especially in university, and read Bjarne Stroustrup's book on the C++
paradigm.
"That specialized knowledge is not a function of the language. A
carpenter can be Chinese, one can program compression bits in
assembler, one can write middleware in Erlang."
This is a good and valid point, but "knowing programming language" is
always an application of it to some field. I believe that this is relevant
to our discussion, where I am talking about the fact that *just* seeing
code is simply not enough.
" Again, 'learning to code' is kinda suspicious."
I don't understand what you mean here.
"The original question was:"
I am not discussing the original question. The discussion did branch out a
bit.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:59 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 23:29:31 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
To unwrap that, if I am writing a game and I need
to know how to
write a javascript random number generator, I don't need to scan
complete code of someone else's program. I need only one part - the
random number generator algorithm.
If you only need to buy carrots, why would you spend 30 minutes waling
up and down all aisles in a supermarket ?
Hopefully you will get a RNG from a library instead, isn't that the
case.
In other words, I am not arguing that looking at
someone's code is
unnecessary, I am arguing that having complete code of a program is
usually not required to learn to code.
I suspect 'learn to code' has something to do with a previous statement
about C++ being like C. Using C++ in 3 days.
It is good sometimes, perhaps
it is very useful, but this is not necessary. Many people learn to
program without being exposed to a complete open source project.
Open Source provides free source code to everyone. The movement was
pushed by many professionals. This is not Windows freeware.
Another important point is that when you are
working in a company,
other people's code is not the only thing that teaches you. Often,
there are also people in the company who will actually walk you
though the code. Just having the code available is not necessarily
helpful.
Why is this downgraded to a comparison between corporate settings and
Open Source ?
The original question was:
"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?"
How can my argument be defeated? With evidence.
It would be
interesting to see stats on major contributions to learning to code.
If this data contradicts my argument - I would definitely follow the
evidence.
Again, 'learning to code' is kinda suspicious.
But using "background knowledge" about
the world, it seems to me that
most people know little about open source and are unlikely to learn
by opening a program they like and start reading through the code.
Then these future developers, designers of software, are missing
something. Outsourcing in sight ?
And, finally, people rarely "know a
programming language". You still
know only parts of it and only certain applications. Even if you know
a lot about C++,
You mean about object orientation ?
it is applied differently to graphics, it is
applied
differently to GUI, differently to sound, differently to text,
compression, databases, etc. Each application requires specialized
knowledge.
That specialized knowledge is not a function of the language. A
carpenter can be Chinese, one can program compression bits in
assembler, one can write middleware in Erlang.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11:32 p.m.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 00:08:58 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"I suspect 'learn to code' has something
to do with a previous
statement about C++ being like C. Using C++ in 3 days."
Haha! By saying that it is "like C" I did
not mean that it is
*exactly* like C++. I know that C++ is a very different language and
I know the C++ object oriented approach. It exists in PHP as well.
My favorite implementation of object orientation is Smalltalk (1).
Really wonderful. 5 keywords. The rest are objects. But not many
jobs. One of these if I get hobby time for object development fun (eg.
much less music, basically), I'll go back to Smalltalk. Next OO
implementation that I like a lot is Perl. Yes. With Moose (2) and/or
POE (3).
By being "like C" I meant that you can read
code and at least
understand something. If you look at Assembly code knowing only C,
you would not understand a thing.
Yes, there are some that are very different. Although many revolves
around the same thing. if you do C and have some notions of functional
programming, you can read Erlang and spot things in it, for instance.
> "That specialized knowledge is not a function
of the language. A
> carpenter can be Chinese, one can program compression bits in
> assembler, one can write middleware in Erlang."
This is a good and valid point, but "knowing
programming language" is
always an application of it to some field. I believe that this is
relevant to our discussion, where I am talking about the fact that
*just* seeing code is simply not enough.
I did spend some time just playing with objects because it is so much
fun, without any field applications. So it depends. For me object
orientation supersedes any programming language. Once you have the
structure and the interaction between objects, it matter less what
programming language is used - the one that fits the application.
Much like music (wrapping up to Linux audio...) when one gets the chord
progression and some melodies, the incarnation of these and the
subsequent interpolations can be done using Zynaddsubfx and Ardour, or
Zebra2 and Bitwig.
> "The original question was:"
I am not discussing the original question. The
discussion did branch
out a bit.
Indeed.
References:
(1) Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/main/
(2) Moose
http://moose.iinteractive.com/en/about.html
(3) POE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_Object_Environment
1 Nov
1 Nov
1:17 p.m.
Hey Massimo!
I cannot agree that this is "very different approach from the proprietary
software". There is no one proprietary software approach. Neither is there
any floss software approach.
Many proprietary developers are working closely with their users (Renoise
is a good example) and many open source developers refuse to get any input
from their users (will not give examples, enough controversy).
Another point is that for the end user it doesn't matter who reviews the
code - proprietary developer or a non-proprietary one. I get huge amount of
system updates to my Ubuntu. I have no idea what it all does. 4 months ago
one of these updates broke my wifi and I had to re-install network manager,
along with some of the drivers.
"I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?"
Really depends on your definition of "nasty" and "evil". Some people
consider lack of anonymity doing payments as "evil". The are, of course,
free to do that, but they should not expect others to agree with them.
In free software narratives there is a lot of black and white talk and
constant lack of nuances, like people failing to make a difference between
confidentiality and anonymity, or between logging anonymous user data and
spying.
For me, for example, not supporting modern devices, requiring installation
of special libraries to watch a DVD, providing broken or low quality
packages in official repos is evil and nasty.
I agree that certain segments of software, especially things like firmware,
drivers, maybe some sensitive portions of operating systems should probably
be at least partially open source. But I don't think that making everything
"free" and open source is a panacea.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Il 31/10/2016 20:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
There is simply no time in the world that anyone
can review code for
even one sophisticated
piece of software they are using. So those claims of free software
activists are mostly irrelevant
for the ordinary user and are no more than sound bites.
Hi folks!
If you do not have enough time, or competence like me, to review source
code of the software you use, there are people that do this boring work
for you in order to assure you that the software you use will do exactly
what you expect. This people are the contributors developers, and we
have at least 71 people who control Ardour[1] for you, and 26 who
control Hydrogen[2] for you. And you can talk with them asking for bugs
correction, new features or more stability, if this is what you are
looking for. A very different approach from the proprietary software.
I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?
I complete agree with yPhil, and that's why I applied the free software
reasons to my music, and I share not only my songs, but even my single
recordings tracks and Ardour project with a CC-BY-SA license.
Please, see:
http://johnoption.org/?page_id=9
Ciao,
Max-B
1. https://github.com/Ardour/ardour
2. https://github.com/hydrogen-music/hydrogen
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:31 p.m.
Il 01/11/2016 14:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
Really depends on your definition of "nasty"
and "evil". Some people
consider lack of anonymity doing payments as "evil". The are, of course,
free to do that, but they should not expect others to agree with them.
This is an interesting point of view.
Thanks Lougi!
Max
--
IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
1:48 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:31:06PM +0100, Massimo Barbieri wrote:
Il 01/11/2016 14:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
Interesting or not, it's a misrepresentation of people who think
like that, a typical simplification to black and white categories.
Things are bit more subtle. Payments not being anonymous is in
itself nothing evil. But when that lack of anonimity is used to
systematically collect data on people's purchasing habits and
interests, and that data is then sold to whoever is prepared to
pay for it, then it can become something 'evil' very easily.
Regarding viewing DVDs on linux: if you need some 'unofficial'
libraries I'd call that 'inconvenient' rather than 'evil'.
And it's not the open source people who are forcing DRM on
consumers. Blame the right ones for once.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Really depends on your definition of
"nasty" and "evil". Some people
consider lack of anonymity doing payments as "evil". The are, of course,
free to do that, but they should not expect others to agree with them.
This is an interesting point of view.
1:55 p.m.
I wrote that to make a point, Fons. I was not seriously saying that I
really do consider that "evil".
"Interesting or not, it's a misrepresentation of people who think
like that, a typical simplification to black and white categories.
Things are bit more subtle.
Payments not being anonymous is in itself nothing evil."
I don't know who are "people who think like that", but Mr. Stallman
will definitely not agree with you. He refuses to use credit cards
and writes propagandistic articles about how others should not
use them too.
Who advertises things to you through credit cards?!
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:31:06PM +0100, Massimo
Barbieri wrote:
Interesting or not, it's a misrepresentation of people who think
like that, a typical simplification to black and white categories.
Things are bit more subtle. Payments not being anonymous is in
itself nothing evil. But when that lack of anonimity is used to
systematically collect data on people's purchasing habits and
interests, and that data is then sold to whoever is prepared to
pay for it, then it can become something 'evil' very easily.
Regarding viewing DVDs on linux: if you need some 'unofficial'
libraries I'd call that 'inconvenient' rather than 'evil'.
And it's not the open source people who are forcing DRM on
consumers. Blame the right ones for once.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
Il 01/11/2016 14:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
> Really depends on your definition of "nasty" and "evil". Some
people
> consider lack of anonymity doing payments as "evil". The are, of
course,
free to
do that, but they should not expect others to agree with them.
This is an interesting point of view.
2:17 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:54:52 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know who are "people who think like
that", but Mr. Stallman
will definitely not agree with you. He refuses to use credit cards
and writes propagandistic articles about how others should not
use them too.
Who advertises things to you through credit cards?!
There are multiple other reasons not to use credit cards the first one
is that lending money should be done without any interest applied. I
am not sure of Stallman addresses the right issues if they are limited
to the data being exchanged.
--
NP: "Devoto" - Deus ex Machina - live, October 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6XpvTWL62s
2:20 p.m.
What's wrong with interest applied? I understand that many people believe
interest to be "unfair", but usually it is because people don't understand
the economics of it. Interest is a tool, just like a price. It is a price
for future money. Price can be unfair sometimes, but price as a concept is
not. Interest in itself is also not unfair.
This interest doesn't always happen, actually. No interest with debit
cards, no interest on credit cards if you return money quickly.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:17 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:54:52 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
I don't know who are "people who think
like that", but Mr. Stallman
will definitely not agree with you. He refuses to use credit cards
and writes propagandistic articles about how others should not
use them too.
Who advertises things to you through credit cards?!
There are multiple other reasons not to use credit cards the first one
is that lending money should be done without any interest applied. I
am not sure of Stallman addresses the right issues if they are limited
to the data being exchanged.
--
NP: "Devoto" - Deus ex Machina - live, October 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6XpvTWL62s
2:36 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:20:09 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What's wrong with interest applied? I understand
that many people
believe interest to be "unfair", but usually it is because people
don't understand the economics of it. Interest is a tool, just like a
price. It is a price for future money. Price can be unfair sometimes,
but price as a concept is not. Interest in itself is also not unfair.
This interest doesn't always happen, actually. No interest with debit
cards, no interest on credit cards if you return money quickly.
Yes. It is rather about the principle in itself. When does it come to
be usury ? In other words, taking advantage of someone who has
misfortune. No need to be christian or muslim, this goes back to
ancient India. At a larger level, with countries, it becomes in some
cases a form of colonization. Much can be said about this, but by far
it exceeds the context of this mailing list.
--
NP: "L'autore del futuro" - Deux ex Machina - live October 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-1gihsMiKc
2:09 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:48:17 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
Interesting or not, it's a misrepresentation of
people who think
like that, a typical simplification to black and white categories.
Things are bit more subtle. Payments not being anonymous is in
itself nothing evil. But when that lack of anonimity is used to
systematically collect data on people's purchasing habits and
interests, and that data is then sold to whoever is prepared to
pay for it, then it can become something 'evil' very easily.
Going out of the scope of Linux music/audio, selling to other companies
is a little 'evil'. A larger evil is the hacking of data.
The trend is though about knowing more about the public. Currently for
instance there are concerns about anonymity and the implementation of
the forthcoming V2X protocol. Although I would not be surprised that
it 'ends up' that posts on the highway will know more about you when
they scan your new car. We have all seen large advertisement displays
on highways now reacting to cars driving by. Hey you in the white
Audi, do you want to get this new coffee maker ? When will it be that
licenses plates are read in the distance, correlations are made in a
snap and bam, the large advertisement display has something exactly for
you when you drive by.
--
NP: "Più uguale" - Deus ex Machina live, October 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwtGryaej3o
2:13 p.m.
I would also agree that a lot of modern technology is beginning to invade
our privacy. I just think that alarmist slogans of us versus them is
unhelpful. We have to rationally define the problem and then proceed to
rationally solve it. Running around with "don't use Windows, credit cards
and iPhones are evil" is of no help. It just alienates the public and
creates an impression that all concerned parties are just lunatics and
suffer from paranoia. In reality, the challenge of privacy vs big data is
very serious.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:09 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:48:17 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
Interesting or not, it's a misrepresentation
of people who think
like that, a typical simplification to black and white categories.
Things are bit more subtle. Payments not being anonymous is in
itself nothing evil. But when that lack of anonimity is used to
systematically collect data on people's purchasing habits and
interests, and that data is then sold to whoever is prepared to
pay for it, then it can become something 'evil' very easily.
Going out of the scope of Linux music/audio, selling to other companies
is a little 'evil'. A larger evil is the hacking of data.
The trend is though about knowing more about the public. Currently for
instance there are concerns about anonymity and the implementation of
the forthcoming V2X protocol. Although I would not be surprised that
it 'ends up' that posts on the highway will know more about you when
they scan your new car. We have all seen large advertisement displays
on highways now reacting to cars driving by. Hey you in the white
Audi, do you want to get this new coffee maker ? When will it be that
licenses plates are read in the distance, correlations are made in a
snap and bam, the large advertisement display has something exactly for
you when you drive by.
--
NP: "Più uguale" - Deus ex Machina live, October 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwtGryaej3o
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
2738
days inactive
2741
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
64 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Felix Homann -
Fons Adriaensen -
fred -
Hanspeter Portner -
jonetsu -
Len Ovens -
Louigi Verona -
Massimo Barbieri -
Robert Edge -
Rui Nuno Capela -
Yassin Philip