Tere's no reason why they should do so, so it will not happen. Best regards ce

On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 17:07 -0600, Ryan Gallagher wrote: You're wrong ;) Here are a few reasons why, off the top of my head: - Any product using Linux adds clout to the OSS movement. - A lot of (business) people think that OSS developers are a bunch of Hippies who are opposed to the idea of making money with software. If there are enough commercial products involving Linux, maybe they'll understand that OSS is entirely compatible with commercial interests, which will also strengthen OSS in general. - So far, few audio companies have found it necessary to port their products to Linux because the market is still too small. However, I'm expecting some of the software that's currently embedded in devices like OASYS or Lionstracs Mediastation to give rise to audio applications for Linux, simply because the development effort would much smaller than porting stuff from an entirely different system. This might help solve the chicken-and-egg problem of Linux audio (few users because there's little software, little software because there are few users...). - A lot of people in the audio world consider Linux unsuitable for professional audio work. Serious tools using Linux might help change that perception. That said, I did find this line about "newly-developed proprietary software" slightly objectionable because they seem to imply that proprietary software is a mark of quality, or else they wouldn't have mentioned this in a marketing document. Cheers, Peter

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:03:58PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: I didn't say I found this surprising, just slightly objectionable ;) At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd say it's deeper than that. Marketing types like proprietary stuff because they think that proprietary==$$$, but they wouldn't write this in a marketing document unless they thought that potential users will think that proprietary==quality. Is it true that Joe Q User will have more faith in a piece of software if it's proprietary? Chances are that the word has been focus group tested; it would be interesting to know how the general public perceives this term. Peter

--- Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote: I think it's awesome that big guys have decided to use Linux in their products. It's a great testament for the usability of Linux Audio. Their implementation of Linux includes proprietary solutions. I see no problem with that. Korg gets a big thank you from me for using Linux and for all the incredible promotional value that they are giving us. Korg has built a linux based keyboard. This rocks my world. If we knock down a few more of the big guys then Linux Audio is a "player". It's interesting to be a dog turd on the bottom of a shoe but to know you're about to force people into buying hip boots is simply priceless. Thank you Korg, ron __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

On Friday 21 January 2005 08:26 pm, Peter Brinkmann wrote: Proprietary means they're the sole source, thats why marketing likes it. Nobody else's doohickey does what ours does because our technology is proprietary. No Virginia, you can't buy the knock off and have it be just as good because our's has got magical powers and we ain't telling what. Joe Q User doesn't give a rats arse about quality, he wants exclusivity. Pros can smell the bullshit, consumers cannot.