some Edirol devices are also known to work. Best thing would be you decide for one and ask again for this particular device. Best regards ce

I agree a cool user driven WIki would be cool. there's alsa.opensrc.org, but it's not the place for all the info we could collect. An audio user wiki would be cool, and a cool domain name, too. Unfortunately, this costs money. Best regards ce

Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: But both also require firmware which is not free, has to be installed on every machine where you want to use the keyboard and it has to be extracted using a custom tool from some file which you only can unpack using a Windows machine or Wine. Although this works it's not worth the hassle IMO when there are keyboards that really work plug and play with standard drivers as is the whole idea of USB. Better buy another keyboard. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ _ __latest track: "plak" @ http://footils.org/cms/show/44

Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: I didn't intend to discuss "tainting" the kernel with non-free firmware or licensing issues at all here, because I don't care about this. What bothers me is this: I'm not allowed to put this firmware on a website in an unpacked, extracted format so Linux users could download and install it more easily than having to go through the Wine and usb-fw-extract procedure every time. I own the Oxygen and it would be much easier to set up by having the firmware available in a Linux friendly format. But no, it's not available, no one except M-Audio is allowed to make it available and that is why I would recommend to rather buy the Evolution or so (which is also by M-Audio btw.) Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ _ __latest track: "plak" @ http://footils.org/cms/show/44

On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 18:16 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: I suspect no one even asked M-Audio for permission to redistribute the firmware as part of an open source driver. Lee

On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 09:37, Lee Revell wrote: I think I did that a long long time ago, never got an answer. It used to be possible to just unzip the driver download and extract the firmware. At some point that changed and you could only extract it inside windows by running the install program (or by the other hack mentioned before in the thread). This change might have been unrelated to linux but it is, nevertheless, very unfriendly. I would not recommend buying that hardware when other hardware is available that does not require contortions to make it run. -- Fernando

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:48:56PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: What about the keystation pro 88? m-audio's web site claims it is class compliant. Does anyone here have experience with it in linux? -- Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia 2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900 CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact network(a)rfa.org.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:16:55 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote: Often they have a logo that says no drivers required on OSX and/or windows, which is generally a sign that its more-or-less class compliant. - Steve

you can fix your bugs after the device is delivered, but it seduces to deliver too early. Best regards ce

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 04:53 pm, Emanuel Rumpf wrote: Some time ago I had volunteered the use of WikiLearn for linux-audio. See: * http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/LinuxAudio * http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/LA_SoundCards Marc Vinyes did most of the work involved in setting up the pages listed on the LinuxAudio page. You (or anyone else) is welcome to build on this work. If you need some help, let me know. (WikiLearn is indexed by Google (which I think is the best way to find stuff on WikiLearn). One limitation of WikiLearn in its current location is that I don't plan to break WikiLearn into multiple webs (folders/directories) while hosted on twiki.org so as to avoid wearing out my welcome. Randy Kramer

On Thursday 18 August 2005 02:09 pm, Emanuel Rumpf wrote: Thanks! I've added a link to the Linux Audio topic (and a list of Linux Audio pages) on the left panel. Hope that helps. I'll have to think about that--there are almost 2000 pages on WikiLearn, I can't list them all on the left menu. I usually recommend the search page for finding a specific page. If you have some other suggestions, let me know. (Note though, that the Linux Audio is probably only about 20 of the almost 2000 pages.) I had/have planned to move the site to another host, at which time I'd create more webs. Unfortunately, that just hasn't happened yet (in five years of existence). regards, Randy Kramer

On Saturday 20 August 2005 07:35 am, Emanuel Rumpf wrote: Thanks! The other point that I didn't make is that they don't have to search on WikiLearn, they can search on Google (or any other web search engine), and, if the pages have good titles/words/content (where good means words that reasonably identify the content of the page) the WikiLearn pages will show up in Google (or whatever search engine is used). (Using Google in the above sense should not be confused with using the Google search on the WikiLearn search page.) Still, if you have additional suggestions ... (or if you want to (and can) help move WikiLearn to another (hopefully free) hosting site where we can devote an entire web (or more than one to audio) let me know. regards, Randy Kramer

Christoph Eckert wrote: Shure, as long as there are people contributing I would contribute the web-space and a moin-moin (python) wiki installation. IMO visitorfriendlyness is most importent, a logical menu structure, an introduction (what's all this about) More tomorrow. regards, Emanuel

On Sunday 21 August 2005 20:43, Christoph Eckert wrote: Yes. If not already taken, it should be. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim

But it excludes free audio software on other operating systems. Many tools are also available for Mac OS or even Windows. Best regards ce

On Monday 22 August 2005 08:03, Lee Revell wrote: i think we already discussed this point. open source software running on non-free operating systems can be seen as ambassadors. the reason why i finally switched to linux was that i had to do with open source products since a while, e.g. apache, mysql, python, nsis. at work i have to use windows, and i'm happy to be able to use some stuff there as well, such as inkscape. i wonder if it isn't more shortsighted to "not mingle with the bad people". this is a dialogue, not a war fought through rejection. -- -- leonard "paniq" ritter -- http://www.paniq.org -- http://www.mjoo.org

On Monday 22 August 2005 02:03, Lee Revell wrote: I disagree strongly. I support Open and Free by using linux since about 1996 or 7 and not using windows since 3 or 4 years ago. But it hasn't been free of headaches. And the kernel/bleeding edge stuff .... I don't know how to describe what i'm feeling And I'm pleased to see linux developed software breaking into windows and mac land. Rather than hurting the Free and Open community, I think it may help it. I've never used a mac; lot's of my musician friends do. But if the day were to come that I could get "mac os" and KDE, and Audacity, ..., I certainly would consider installing it and using it along with linux. In short, I think the Free and Open community extends beyond a single os. Marv

El dom, 21-08-2005 a las 18:15, Christoph Eckert escribió: IMHO, It's _not_ the same, but it would sound alike Open Sound Sistem. freeaudiosoftware.org is fine. ¿perhaps libreaudiosoftware.org? Cheers, Damian.-

So, however we finally call it, here it is, the wiki: http://lauwiki.branwelt.de:8048/ At the moment it's running standalone. I've tried to run it with apache/mod_python, but the stylesheets were not found Propably I can fix it anytime (Note. If I can manage to run it with mod_python, the url will change - propably to http://lauwiki.branwelt.de/lauwiki ) I also experimented with categorization, since the wiki supports it, but unfortunatly wiki-syntax became very complicated than. On the Topics-page, there is a trial with categorized structure (at the bottom). I don't really like the way this wiki treats linking..hm If you agree, with the "non-categorisation", we all could start to edit the contents and move http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/LinuxAudioListOfPages (Note, the wiki-syntax is different) best regards, emanuel

Randy Kramer wrote: good idea let's keep the content of wikilearn for a while. If someone moved the content, give a note at the top of the page I would suggest every author to move its own contents. I suggest the entries of the new wiki to set under FDL ( GNU Free Documentation License http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html ) Or under CC? (Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ ) But since there are so many authors that would not be appropriate propably Is there any "wiki-licence"? I haven't thought about this yet.

Am Montag, 22. August 2005 20:55 schrieb Randy Kramer: I vote for the latter case. Otherwise if the author isn't available anymore some day, it's difficult to ask him if his contribution may be used for this or that. Even on WIkipedia.org you have to choose from a set of available licenses, otherwise your post will be deleted. Best regards ce

Seems to be available. Best regards ce

I just found another wiki-syntax, that would simplify the use of categorized links: [:Topics/System/Hardware: Hardware]

David Collins wrote: totally agree ... if the domain or site uses "linux" in its identification, then it should definitely be "gnu/linux". stallman ain't no crank ... shayne

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 12:09 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: disagree--; Regardless of what "GNU/Linux" is supposed to represent, what it *does* represent is "fruitcake." We're currently fighting a battle for simple adoption; I don't care to wage an additional war for syntactic purity. -Pete

On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:12 +1000, Shayne O'Connor wrote: If you don't think "GNU" and "Free Software" are stumbling blocks to mainstream adoption of the fruit of our community's labor, then I must conclude, to borrow a concept from Samizdata, that you and I exist in alternate realities. I have been a non-stop evangelist for our platform in Real Life (TM), in many bands and with many musicians (and the occasional fan). And based on my Real Life (TM) experience with these groups, I find the results of "GNU/Linux," "Free Software," et al, to be exceedingly suboptimal. Here's my recollection of how an exemplary conversation went down with a bassist I once worked with: "Hey man, that beat is pretty slick, whadja use to roll it?" 'A free software sampler I wrote for GNU/Linux.' "Is that like RedHat Linux? 'Cuz my brother works for an ISP and he says they all use RedHat Linux. If he hooks me up with that, could I run your software?" 'Well, RedHat Linux should really be called RedHat GNU/Linux. Linux is just a kernel, the rest of the operating system is part of the GNU project.' "What the fucks a kernel?" 'Uh, you can think of a kernel as a piece of software that talks to the hardware so the rest of the software doesn't have to. All operating systems have kernels, but a kernel by itself is not an operating system. You gotta have stuff to make, like, the taskbar in windows, and other shit, before you've got an operating system.' "So the 'Linux' is the kernel, and the 'GNU' is everything else." 'Yeah.' "I've never heard of that before." 'Well... it's kinda complex, but that's what it's supposed to be called.' "Ok, but anyway, if my brother hooks me up with Linux--" '--GNU/Linux.' "Whatever..." (At this point, the bassist is a little pissed off. He may not be a computer geek, but he's heard about Linux. It's not an uncommon term these days. However, GNU in general, and GNU/Linux in particular, is. So, I'm basically telling him that his perception of the world is wrong. In my experience, his reaction is representative of *everyone* who isn't already with the "in crowd.") "...my brother gets me RedHat, and I can run your software?" 'Yeah, that's the idea. Really, though, you don't need your brother to get RedHat for you, because it's Free Software.' "Oh, that's good, my broke ass likes free! Hahaha!" (I'm now resisting the temptation to elaborate on the definition of "Free Software" in light of his negative reaction to "GNU/Linux.) "Specimen is free too, right?" (I can resist no longer.) 'Well, yes, but that's only part of the point. When I say "free software" I mean "free as in free speech," not "free as in free beer." I mean, yeah, it costs zero dollars, but what's really important is that anybody is free to share and modify the code.' "So free software is like open sources, only you don't have to pay for it?" 'Well, you don't really have to pay for open source software either.' "Wait, I'm confused. If you don't have to pay for it, why is it, like, fifty bucks at Office Depot?" 'Well you *can* pay for it if you want to. You get stuff like professionally made CDs, manual, and technical support, and updates as they get released if you buy it. See, RedHat is what's called a GNU/Linux "distribution." They don't really own and sell GNU/Linux, what they own and sell is the service is distributing and supporting their version of GNU/Linux.' "So why are there two ways to say the same thing? It's confusing as shit!" 'They don't mean exactly the same thing, but that's basically a technicality. Free software represents the idea of software freedom, that *everyone* should be free to share and modify *all* software because that's, like, a human right. Open source means that being able to share and modify software is pretty cool and actually a good way to make software.' "A human right? That's reachin' man." I'm sure you can guess that, from here, we had a huge debate about IP. His immutable stance was that our current IP laws and enforcement is a little whack, but the idea that everything should be "open sources" (never did come around to "free software") is bonkers. I justified my position with the standard FSF talking points. Didn't work for shit. I have been through this a lot. Way too damn much. It was a CONSISTENT pain in my ass. And if you doubt my "purity," check the archives of my website: http://web.archive.org/web/20040109215919/http://www.gazuga.net/ The problem with insisting on the use of "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" when attempting to garner broader public support is that the public has already been exposed to our platform --- and they call it "Linux" and "Open Source(s)." If you think this isn't a problem, re-read my comment about "alternate realities" above. The reason the public uses these terms, and not the others, is because they are the dominant players that emerged in the market for nomenclature. The connotations embedded in "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" are ambiguous to those who don't know, and for the vast majority of those who learn or do know, represent a concept they don't give a petrified cat turd about. The maddening consistency of these results is what drove me to shed my own strict FSF approved views. (Not to mention the dissonance it caused with my hardcore libertarian sentiments.) Compare software freedom to gun control debates. Regardless of which side of the fence your on when it comes to keeping and bearing arms, you most likely have an opinion on the matter. But when it comes to software, people, by and large, just want to maximize quality and minimize price. Whatever value they place on "freedom," it is nowhere near enough to make them hop ship. Now, the philosophy behind what does and does not constitute a right is obviously a debatable thing. But from a pragmatic perspective, and like it or not, there simply are not enough people who care to make the freedom pitch work. At least in my dimension. Being a libertarian-anarchist, I'm of the mind that our current approach to IP is wrong. I'd much rather let the market sort it out. To that end, I am member #1301 with the FSF because I enjoy using and developing open source software, as well as being a part of the surrounding community. I personally see it as both a great symbol of freedom, and a subversive way to avoid the IP nightmare I perceive that we live in. But steadfastly insisting on the use of "GNU/Linux" and "free software" when interacting with the general public has proven to be a monumental pain in my ass that has gotten me nowhere. After years of protest, my experience forces me to conclude that ESR is right and RMS is wrong --- the ideology* simply will not sell. In my neck of the universe, that is. Now. If you want to live an ideologically "pure" life, this won't really affect you. (Good luck with that, by the way. Me, I don't argue with the weather, barring extreme circumstances of the torturing-children degree.) But for me personally --- and, I suspect, my ilk generally --- that brand of ideology and terminology has cost far more than it's worth. Whether my goal of open-source proliferation is desirable vis-a-vis working for software freedom is, of course, debatable. It is debatable in two ways. On the one hand, you might argue that it is inferior to convincing everyone of software freedom --- but as this diatribe should prove, my experience has been to the contrary. On the other hand, you might decide to argue that it is a moral imperative --- but to roughly quote David D. Friedman, "moral philosophy is an old enterprise, and its rate of progress has not been great in recent centuries." In essence, you will have to debate my libertarian perspective. And, well, I don't think you'll enjoy that. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch FOX news, get drunk on Jim Beam, beat my wife, molest my kids, shoot a homeless person, kick my dog, chop down a tree, drive my SUV to my local school board and demand that darwinism be replaced with creationism in the curriculum, they go to a KKK rally and give a speech in favor of Uncle Sam's two pronged War for Oil and War Against Brown People. Cheers, -Pete * Don't bother deducing from this statement that I am not ideological. It is petty, aggravating, wrong, and argumentum ad hominem. I'd hope that the final paragraph of this message has proven to supply an amply amount of the latter, anyway.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:25:25 +1000, "Shayne O'Connor" Where are you going with this? I just wrote a long ass email about why GNU-approved terminology is a stumbling block to adoption. The fact that it's a subtle concept which is not immediately grasped was only part of the picture. And ease of typing has nothing to do with it. *I* had trouble with "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software," and I *wrote* Specimen. A task which, in my experience, is almost as confusing as installing software. You've got it backwards. The reality is that the use of GNU/Linux pales in comparison to Linux, and that's not changing. A further aspect of this reality is the use of GNU/Linux is a stumbling block to adoption by the "unwashed masses." A musician contemplating the use of Linux is not going to expect freeaudiosoftware.org to have a damn thing to do with it. Hell, even the Gnome home page says "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux," and it's a fraggin' GNU project. You think that, to some fuzzily defined extent, we should say "GNU/Linux" because that's The Right Thing. This is ideological. I think that, to an absolute extent, we should say "Linux" because that's what the rest of the world says. This is realistic. These days, I say "I use an open source program called Specimen that I wrote for Linux," and everybody understands me fine. -Pete

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:58:24 +1000, "Shayne O'Connor" <forums(a)machinehasnoagenda.com> said: I assumed nothing about your position. My email was about why GNU-approved terminology is a stumbling block to adoption, and why I think we should not use it ever. This isn't even affected but how often you think we should say "GNU/Linux." I don't care about that, anyway. If it's greater than 0%, I think it's too much. I don't understand this passage. This is a rehearsal of the standard GNU position. As my previous email addressed, the issue of software freedom is a complete non-starter outside of our circle. Ergo, the pragmatically oriented open-source-and-Linux movement is better at growing the userbase. This is, I think, easy to verify empirically. I have attempted to demonstrate that the "GNU way" retards adoption, to a degree that makes naming an important domain in a "GNU approved" manner "asking too much." I don't understand what this is supposed to prove vis-a-vis "free software." Then, you think that, to some fuzzily defined extent, we should say "GNU/Linux" because that's what it *is*. I should hope that I'm right about determing what I'm thinking. As it pertains to growing the userbase, I still think that my position is realistic, and yours ideological. Not. -Pete

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:58:24 +1000 "Shayne O'Connor" <forums(a)machinehasnoagenda.com> wrote: Hi, i don't agree at all. Sure GNU tools are an important set of tools for every Linux distribution. Some might even argue, they are essential. Linux (the kernel) would probably not even exist without the gcc being available. Also glibc is an essential part of almost every linux distribution (plus all the network-, filesystem-, and other tools kindly provided by the GNU project). But please, this is free software. I can call my project based on GNU software whatever i want to call it. Everyone who tries to force me to use a name different from the one i chose can (from my point of view) also talk to a brickwall instead. It doesn't have any relevance to me. Sure, part of the GPL is afaik that when i base my work on someone else's or even only redistribute someone else's GPL'ed work i have to make sure i don't obscure authorship. This is in no way happening in any of the Linux distributions. The gcc is still the GNU C Compiler, the glibc is still the GNU libc. So i don't see what point Stallmann and all the other GNU/Linux evangelists try to make. Sure, it's courtesy to make GNU prominent in the name, as GNU is a major contribution to all Linux distributions, but there's no legal or even strong ethic reason to do so. You wanted your software to be free. Now it is free and you have to live with it :) Stop complaining. It would also probably help if the GNU/Linux evangelists would simply say: "Hey it would be kind of you if you mentioned GNU in your product name, but of course, you don't have to. It's free software!" Please don't make it a religious issue. Regards, Flo -- Palimm Palimm! http://tapas.affenbande.org

I'm really surprised that there's so much discussion about this issue. It's absolutely OK that the GNU people like to get honoured a bit more by calling the whole thing Gnu/Linux. But should I really call my whole (audio) system »Linux/Gnu/Xorg/JACK/KDE/QJackctl/...« all day? One idea was to call the whole thing something else than Linux, but anyway now it gets called Linux and that's how it is. Best regards ce

Hey, we're community, and community means that people have different opinions. No prob so far :) . Best regards ce

Man I fell about reading this!! Nice, I just call it linux! and I show people what it does!! Re the war Check out: www.hearmymusic.co.uk and go for 'Dude where's my Oil' Keep em coming! Bob Bearmusic Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch FOX news, get drunk on

we've been doing something much less organised than that here for some time: http://www.pawfal.org/index.php?page=ChatPage :) dave

well, no - it's a glorious mess :) dave

you're right, sorry in the rush of "my idea" I flew to high, when claiming me as the inventor however, let's file and improve the concept.. best regards, emanuel

Pete Bessman wrote: btw - specimen rocks ... shayne

Lee Revell wrote: Unfortunately I have to agree. Just read / for about 10 minutes!! Cheers Bob

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 07:19:15 -0400, Randy Kramer wrote: Well, theres the linux-audio-developers :) and linuxaudio.org http://linuxaudio.org/en/about.html - Steve

El mar, 23-08-2005 a las 08:19, Randy Kramer escribió: [snip] Well, kind of. LAU-es, Linux Audio Users en español. It was created by members of this list. Cheers, Damian.- Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot. -- Groucho Marx

Thanks for the hint, I didn't knew that.

Greetings: Just a few (maybe humorous) words on the naming issue. When I met Bradley Kuhns (FSF wig) at a Debian conference I asked him whether he thought I should be more specific when referring to my truck. I wondered if I really ought to call it a Michelin/Ford since the tires were indispensable and certainly a prior technology upon which the truck itself is dependent. He stopped talking to me. Silently rebuked for levity, dp PS: I'm definitely on the side of the FSF, but I can't escape the feeling that RMS saw an opportunity and has been rationalizing his position ever since. In other respects, RMS is a true Titan of our times.

I moved the wiki to its new location. I hope most of you agree with the url now. http://wiki.freeaudiosoftware.org/ Emanuel

On Wednesday 24 August 2005 03:48, Christoph Eckert wrote: You can obviously do anything you want but you could have also used http://opensrc.org/FreeAudioSoftware or some other variation like http://audio.opensrc.org/ChristophEckert and created any amount of pages you cared to (as anyone can) and actually helped out with an established Wiki that already gets 5000 hits a day rather than fragment DESPERATELY needed user input even further. --markc

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 21:13 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: None of this explains why you "forked." -Pete

On Tuesday 23 August 2005 10:05 am, Emanuel Rumpf wrote: Hope I don't come across as ornery (frustrated, maybe ;-), but: * all the pages I've looked at so far are apparently immutable * is that because I've neither registered nor logged in so far? * in an effort to find out, I did a full text search on immutable--apparently it is not mentioned in the help (nor anywhere else on the wiki) * is immutable the word we want to use? Or could we come up with a simpler alternative? "Page not editable", for example, or maybe just "not editable". Are we stuck with "immutable" or is it something that can be configured? regards, Randy Kramer

On Tuesday 23 August 2005 03:05 pm, Christoph Eckert wrote: Thanks! Hmm, I think you've answered two (or three) of my questions with one answer! Yes, if immutable means that I can't edit because I'm not logged in, that (or something similar) would be much better. regards, Randy Kramer Yup!

If you can edit the dns entries for the domain (associate an IP-address with it, set the dns-servers), this should be possible. If you're inside the EU, you could buy by the domain from myself. The server location is germany is fine regards, emanuel

I did and got no reply. Best regards ce

Hi, I told them that the Midisport 8x8 works very well on my Linux box and that I'm just happy with the device. Then I asked if it would be possible that the *binary* firmware file could be available for redistribution in open source projects, and I pointed out that in case that this is not possible it would be great if they at least put the single file on their homepage so Linux users are not in need of peeling the firmware out of the windows driver. I did all this by snail mail (with reason) in march 2005 and got no reply until today. I did avoid all RME or even Marek style speech, but I couldn't resist to tell m-audio that most people recommend Edirol stuff instead of m-audio because it works right out of the box without firmware loading. This is the speech the sales guys usually understand(at least I hoped they did :) . Best regards ce