RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote: It is pretty nice software, don't get me wrong, but it's not perfect, and it's very expensive. It's MIDI import screws stuff up a lot, and I've had problems writing drum tracks. There was this one MIDI version of a Dream Theater song I was using so I could learn the tune for a band I was in, and Finale didn't play it back correctly (there were some wierd triplets). The exact same MIDI file imported into Rosegarden 4 played back with the correct rhythm. -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom.

At 20.01 08/07/04, you wrote: I agree any technical reason, any commercial dissents, but as a professional musician, I haven't enough time to typeset a score with lilypond... I tryied a lot, but for people that read music automatically Finale is really the best way of copying, transposing and making music. Noteedit, could be good for sequencing, as Logic or Rosegarden, but not for typesetting. Try to make a good transcription of an edited score with Noteedit, and the we talk again. Try to wryte easyly a tuplet with noteedit... I'm sure about I've to pravtise a lot with denemo or noteedit, but I can't say.. "Ok Linux is ok for typesetting"... believe me! Ste Stefano Cardo Debian DeMuDi GNU/Linux User

At 20.55 08/07/04, you wrote: Please Brett... Let Midi and Postscript away for a moment... Did you ever made a copy or a change score for playing that can be a little similar to the original from Schott, Henle, BMG, Suvini Zerboni, or other printed score? I desire an open source tool, really!! But for the moment, googling scores edited by lilypond, I'ven't found anything really good... and a lot of time to typesetting it... Sometime I have to change details in some scores and send it to my friend: with finale I do it in few minute... Most of professional instrument players don't need any MIDI playback... they know very well how the score plays.. I hope you can understand my sadness... Ste Stefano Cardo Debian DeMuDi GNU/Linux User

reed wrote: I desire one too :) But are any programmers willing? I'm good at writing comprehensive, readable specs; but not muich more than that. Actually my wife, a professional musician, does like the MIDI playback sometimes - but only as a way to listen to a "draft" performance. To check if something is wrong, for example. Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

Dreamworks did exactly that - asked Adobe to port Photoshop. Adobe refused, so Dreamworks paid Codeweavers to hack on WINE until it could run Photoshop. It's a hybrid libre/proprietary solution, but it worked out a lot better for Dreamworks than having two machines on each desktop. Cheers Daniel

On 09-Jul-2004 tim hall wrote: } Last Thursday 08 July 2004 21:48, RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net was like: } > Linux is an excellent solution for 2d graphics. {Tho' convincing the } > Photoshop acolyte of this is beyond difficult.} } } This argument about porting Finale or Sibelius is a bit like suggesting we } put pressure on Photoshop to port to Linux. Photoshop already runs under Wine. I don't think it's necessary anyway. I'm pretty sure Illustrator does as well. Adobe used to be really supportive of linux. I'm not sure what happened with that. Stuff on linux tends to be a bit more art/experiment oriented than commercial. I think you could easily run a commercial studio with linux though. Pre-press has made huge advances... I don't really know what hardware support is like though. {For drum printers, etc...} I don't see anything wrong with asking. I don't think anyone should be "pressuring" I don't see why any company wouldn't jump at the chance to extend their user base. Large commercial apps have a pretty lousy track record on linux though. {FrameMaker, Corel Draw... I think Mediascape may have given up on Artstream... I had no idea you could still get WordPerfect http://www.linuxmafia.com/wpfaq/downloadwp8.html#DOWNLOADURL , linuxlinks.com still has a lot of commercial apps listed, etc...} I don't know if that's because linux users are sans cash or because of competition with open source apps. ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 09-Jul-2004 Time: 14:04:54 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

Hello, Them wrote: But. I could not get what I need in the way of note entry and pronting, from either NoteEdit or RoseGarden. Last time I checked, NoteEdit could not even wrap lines on the screen, and RoseGarden didn't even have repeat bars. I understand these particular problems may get fixed. But Finale's very concept, as a primarily note editing-and-typesetting tool with some sort of WYSIWYG, is umnatched on Linux; for both NoteEdit and RoseGarden, this sort of use is not the main idea of the author, and this leads to all sorts of missing features. Any sort of alphabetic medium for typesetting notes is about as "right" for a professional musician as it would be "right" for a programmer to somehow write programs in the language of musical score. So Lilyopnd is simply off track. It might be good for people working for publishers and typing notes in from existing drafts; but even they might want a visual tool instead. The success of TeX for formula editing came, I think, from the fact that TeX somehow matches the way a scientist *thinks* about a formula. But IMHO, neither Lilypond nor any other alphabetic editor can approach the way a musician thinks about score! And that's why this won't work. I'm not saying Finale is perfect. And perhaps having a Linux version is not the best solution. Perhaps the best solution is developing an open source Linux visual score editing-and-typesetting suite. It might even become better than Finale because, for example, of a good plugin structure. However, I'm not a programmer, only a technical writer and a husband of a professional musician; I can write a spec, subscribe to LAD and start discussing it, but I can't write the code! Last time I tried the idea here; the general answer was "RG will be up to the task soon". But now, perhaps there are coders who would be willing to join a project for a dedicated note typesetting/editing tool? I can make a spec and join in a discussion, if there's any hope of implementing it. Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

stefano cardo <stefano.cardo(a)fastwebnet.it> writes: And what is that? So did I. I still prefer to record with ecasound than with ProTools! It's because they don't know and don't have time to learn (about) anything else? Finale is the only tool they now. They're paid to use finale. I use windows 8 hours a day at work because they pay me to do so. I hate it, but I do. And if it were the only OS I felt comfortable with I'd be still using it at home. Swearing at it and using it just the same as most people I know do. Actually, I would have bought a Mac, that's where I started. I'm sorry but I don't think Finale or any clone of it should exist in linux. It became a de facto standard because it used to be the only decent quality consummer desktop music publishing app. Just because most of linux users/developers come from Windows background does not mean we should all go for the same kinds of solutions. A lot of them are bad. I understand that users have certain work habits so some middle ground needs be found... sometimes. -- _ __ __ (_)___ Michal Seta / \/ \ _/^ _| / V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org (___/V\___|_|___/ http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org

Them wrote: I've held off making any comment up until now... Look, I'm a composition student and most of my work is jazz and orchestral related stuff. I like a tool that I can see music as I see music on a stave, write music as if I'm writing music on a stave, and have something able to play it back to me so I know what type of crazy sounds I've concocted. It's also a bonus to be able to hammer a midi keyboard and see the crazy jazz chord come up on screen. Time is of the essence when writing. Lilypond is all good and well when you're keen to rewrite your 12 minute full orchesral score into a text pad so that you can have pretty typesetted music, but it's more practical to compose and type set it at the same time using a graphical tool because in the traditionl comopsitional world, music is written to a stave. A graphical frontend IS the easiest way to do it. You see what you would see if you were composing away from the computer. I can't see how this can possibly be debated. Ask anyobe at the music school, students AND lecturers and they will share the same thoughts as I. Glenn.

Glenn McCord <clari_player(a)paradise.net.nz> writes: Totally agree. Yes! And perhaps I'm a moron, but even after having learned all(?) possible shortcuts for entering music, i found working with finale sluggish. I could write faster by hand. Don't you want pretty music? If you don't then perhaps the orchestra that will be playing your piece will appreciate well typeset music. You can make pretty looking pages with Finale but how long will it take? That's why tools like Rosegarden or Muse (no lilypond though) exist. You can play in your music, point and click in the score or on the pianoroll and slice and move and copy and paste and duplicate and do all kinds of stuff to your music. You can look at it any way you want and do with it what you want. Then, if you're using RG, pretty print it with lilypond. I haven't seen a notation app that allows for such mangling of the score with the ease of a sequencer. On the other hand, composing is an art and typesetting is another art. They don't necessarily go together. traditionnaly composers employed copyists to do the dirty (pretty) work. If it does not slow you down. Otherwise, I'd rather do it by hand. For composing, yes (providing you compose in the more or less traditional style). For typesetting not necessarily. I'm all for a GUI notation soft in linux! but not as cumbersome as finale and not a toy like Sibelius. Lilypond, as someone mentioned, has come a long way and its output beats many consummer grade software, even industry standard ones, with default settings. Do we need another frontend? I don't think so. There's room for improvement in the existing ones (I guess...). ./MiS -- _ __ __ (_)___ Michal Seta / \/ \ _/^ _| / V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org (___/V\___|_|___/ http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org

Michal Seta wrote: It's not about work habits for me. I have not been interested in music editing at all until I have married a musician lady in early 2003. She never did computer music editing too. And she's the classical kind of musician, preferring acoustic instruments and such; for her the PC is an editing and typesetting tool for making scores she will play on a very real piano. With Finale, she is at ease with her existing skills. She is trained to think of the score and see the score! But wilh Lilypond and such, she in effect needs to learn *programming* - a very different thing from what classical musicians do. Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

Michal Seta wrote: Yes, in my mind, "programming" requires the existance of conditions and (possibly backward) branches. Chris

Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote: Yes, of course, but the typesetting language _itself_ doesn't have this, right? I can also do: \begin{verbatim} for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) { foo (); } \end{verbatim} in TeX, but that doesn't make it _programming_. If TeX or the music typesetting stuff _does_ have this capacity, that would be interesting. In fact, I think functional / procedural sequencing is pretty neat in itself, although I don't know much about it at all, if it leads to anything musical, if it's a well-known technique, etc. etc. Cheers, Chris

Chris Cannam wrote: I had a feeling TeX could do that. If people are doing the same kind of things to write music, then to me it's definitely programming. Great. Thanks man. Way to prove my point! :P Chris

At 16.09 10/07/04, you wrote: ....... quite please... I can understand your minding, but... Do you think da an A4 is limited amount of information? tell it to a jazz player and he will beat you ;-) Please, really, I'm interested in new music, I play Clarinet and Bass Clarinet and if you need a player for you music contact me!!! Stefano Cardo Debian DeMuDi GNU/Linux User

--- Mikhail Ramendik &lt;mr(a)ramendik.ru&gt; wrote: > Michal Seta wrote: It is interesting because I subscribe to a classical guitar newsgroup and, like Dubya, WYSIWYG vs. coding notation programmes is a hot and divisive topic. I wonder if there is some sort of brain lateralization issue here (I'm left-handed for what it is worth). What I have always found unsatisfactory about pointy-clicky music notation programmes is that there are far too many built-in formatting assumptions made about your intended layout. I mostly notate classical guitar music which is very dense and complex - often there are three independent voices on one stave. For me, coding is as close as you can get (except for a copper engraving plate) to starting out with a blank page and laying things out as you want. You are not limited to a handful of choices from a drop down menu or a dialog box. ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Last Friday 09 July 2004 16:10, Mikhail Ramendik was like: I disagree that it's so different. I find programming quite similar to the process of composition, I guess that's why I'm attracted to things like pd, although I don't really understand it properly yet. That said, I haven't looked at Lilypond yet for precisely the reason that I find the concept of learning yet another markup language a bit daunting. Pointing and clicking on scores isn't so good either. In Rosegarden, I'm finding that I use the notation to troubleshoot harmonic & rhythmic misalignments and then go back into the matrix to fix them. For my purposes, I'm confident that I can create any sheet music I need using Rosegarden, touching it up with Lilypond if necessary. The important thing is that the notes are readable, text is aligned correctly and the piece can be realised accurately using the score as reference. I probably wouldn't consider using finale even if it _was_ available now. cheers tim hall

Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 14:46, Dave Phillips was like: Are we talking giant inflatable bananas here? cheers tim hall

Do they come with sleeping garments? Dave Phillips wrote:

--- Immanuel Litzroth &lt;immanuell(a)enfocus.be&gt; wrote: > Mikhail Ramendik &lt;mr(a)ramendik.ru&gt; writes: the record, I am a working musician and I use PMW (Philip's Music Writer) - a typesetting programme similar to Lilypond. I've tried many programmes, and I find coding (particularly with PMW) to be far more intuitive and versatile than the pointy-clicky commercial programmes. ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

I am a musician and not a programmer. And I'm fine with text input. I agree that lilypond is not necessary suitable for writing down ideas when you compose, but I'm not sure, anywyas... Once used to the syntax it doesn't actually make much difference whether it looks like music notation or just text... then again, perhaps I've been reading too much Cage :) Immanuel Litzroth &lt;immanuell(a)enfocus.be&gt; writes: -- _ __ __ (_)___ Michal Seta / \/ \ _/^ _| / V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org (___/V\___|_|___/ http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org

At 15.34 09/07/04, you wrote: with a sort of speedy entry, not... probably for other thing like slurs or dinamics marks or other details... ste Stefano Cardo Debian DeMuDi GNU/Linux User

At 17.39 09/07/04, you wrote: OK guys!!! Everyone of you are right, I cannot say the opposite, because each one has his way of reacting with a problem. Lilypond is good, and probably will be better and better, I know it (it is at 2.1.0 release...) but in my opinion is like watching the green symbols in Matrix... when you are used to watch at it you finally understand it (only MHO). But apart from this, I don't want to think that Linux doesn't need a WYSIWYG application... you can record or manage sound with ecasound or wiyh sox, but other people need audacity, or a lot of other guified application... So I begin the discussione on finale, not for commercial reason, but only to suggest the lack of a completely graphical frontend for edit music score. Probably mscore that in the night had a peack of download ;-) but (i think) no installation :-( could be in the next future something to point out... But I hope that Rosegarden, Noteedit and Denemo will be soon improved.. really I hope. I don't need a commercial product because I believe in the open source philosophy, and for wath concern myself I can only translate to italian, suggest bugs, and tell friends to discover the Linux world... sincerely ste Stefano Cardo Debian DeMuDi GNU/Linux User

stefano cardo &lt;stefano.cardo(a)fastwebnet.it&gt; writes: phew! that was easy! I'm not saying it doesn't need one... I just thought that finale was a bad choice for an example. Really, really bad. ./MiS -- _ __ __ (_)___ Michal Seta / \/ \ _/^ _| / V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org (___/V\___|_|___/ http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org

At 21.29 08/07/04, you wrote: I'll do it. I'm sure that a Finale has to be a model for a music editor... I'm completely agree with you I believe that application like denemo or noteedit, must grow up!! The base is good, but there isn't any detail, any way for typesetting the score... My 20.00 $ is ready to send!! I'm not joking.. You are right... For myself, I'm contributing to translate and give suggestion to the denemo project. I don't know how many developers knows denemo and how many of them works on it, or are interested in typesetting music editor... Ste Stefano Cardo Debian DeMuDi GNU/Linux User

On 08-Jul-2004 Emiliano Grilli wrote: } gioved�, 08 luglio 2004 alle 22:00:51, reed ha scritto: } > >I am prepared to spend $10.00 or $15.00 towards the } > >purchase of something if I know that money will be } > >well spent. If a couple hundred of us do that, we'll } > >make a hell of a contribution to our favorite project. } > } > } > My 20.00 $ is ready to send!! I'm not joking.. } } Have you had a look at mup? It's 29$, and these are the best money I've } spent for a software... The paradigm is completely different from finale } (it is not WYSIWYG), but the synthax is much more simple than lilypond, and } it's very powerful, I suggest you to try the demo version: I really like the shareware idea. It's clearcut and easy. And it helps progr ammers out of the "you need to work for someone else to make a living" thing. {:} Might be nice if some of the winstuff I've already paid for would port though. {The vst server does take care of some of that}} ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 08-Jul-2004 Time: 15:52:44 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

On 08-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > On 08-Jul-2004 Emiliano Grilli wrote: } > } gioved�, 08 luglio 2004 alle 22:00:51, reed ha scritto: } > } > >I am prepared to spend $10.00 or $15.00 towards the } > } > >purchase of something if I know that money will be } > } > >well spent. If a couple hundred of us do that, we'll } > } > >make a hell of a contribution to our favorite project. } > } > My 20.00 $ is ready to send!! I'm not joking.. } > } } > } Have you had a look at mup? It's 29$, and these are the best money I've } > } spent for a software... The paradigm is completely different from finale } > } (it is not WYSIWYG), but the synthax is much more simple than lilypond, } > and } > } it's very powerful, I suggest you to try the demo version: } > } > I really like the shareware idea. It's clearcut and easy. } } Except that it's not. It turns away developers, it turns away users, } and it turns away distributions. When a shareware project dies, it } dies. There is no more, even if it was very good. Free software } generally dies if it sucks and/or there is no demand -- that's a natural } process of evolution. } } And it helps progr } > ammers out of the "you need to work for someone else to make a living" } > thing. } } I've encountered / heard of very few shareware developers who actually } make a decent programmer's wages from their software. Do you always want to work for someone else? I think there needs to be room for both... just like in other businesses. } > {:} Might be nice if some of the winstuff I've already paid for would port } > though. {The vst server does take care of some of that}} } } Personally, the proliferation of shareware (a.k.a. crippleware), demo } versions, watermarked pages, expiry dates, registration keys, etc. etc. } etc. was one of the biggest reasons I stopped using Windows in the first } place. It drove me nuts! Of course I wasn't prepared to pay for } something if I wasn't even sure to use it regularly (and boy am I glad } as a consumer that I didn't). But I have donated to projects that do } fill a real need in my life, whether with development time, bug reports, } or money, and will continue to do so. Everyone can do that, and more } often than not it seems like there is a greater benefit. Much of that is fixed... It's simple matter to buy stuff now. I don't have a problem with donating to projects when I have the cash. {At the moment I don't} I would rather just pay for something. You are probably right about the greater good... I'm a strong believer in choice though. } I don't mean to flame, rehash a tired ages-old conflict, or come across } as a raving Linux Fanatic (believe me, I do recognize that there are Don't worry about it... Say what you think. I {we} will live through it. It's much more frustrating when someone doesn't. } several places where Linux cannot hold a candle to Windows), but please: } let's make investments that ultimately benefit everybody, not just the } developer (assuming the average small-time shareware / moneyware } developer even really "benefits") and the immediate end user. } } Cheers, and let's not have a totally silly fight, I don't think we're having a fight at all. ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 09-Jul-2004 Time: 00:38:13 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > On 08-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } } > } I've encountered / heard of very few shareware developers who actually } > } make a decent programmer's wages from their software. } > } > Do you always want to work for someone else? I think there needs to be } > room for both... just like in other businesses. } } Well, I guess there's the whole consulting option for free software } developers, i.e. develop features for a fee. There's nothing that stops That's not programming. I don't know if that matters to you. } the developer from keeping the changes private between him and the } client either, if the client is worried about competition. Personally, The GPL? } I want to work for somebody else, but in an environment where I feel } like it's working for myself, but serving the rest of society (e.g. } university, research institute, whatever). Working for customers and } clients just isn't what I want. I can see that. Art is a bit too "self expressive" to allow one to do that and be content with it. It's just too restrictive. For me anyway... } > You are probably right about the greater good... I'm a strong believer in } > choice though. } } I guess ultimately I have the opinion that since we have this amazing } free operating system, that's literally been the product of a } generation's work, it doesn't make sense to turn it into a wasteland. } We've already got Windows for that ... I'm thinking more along the lines of a open source system with shareware apps. I think the system itself would go down the tubes if you started getting internal competition, etc. } > } I don't mean to flame, rehash a tired ages-old conflict, or come across } > } as a raving Linux Fanatic (believe me, I do recognize that there are } > } > Don't worry about it... Say what you think. I {we} will live through it. } > It's much more frustrating when someone doesn't. } } Depends on who they are ;) No... I'd rather hear things straight from anyone... Otherwise things start to get snipish and stupid, folk say what they really mean offlist, etc... } > } Cheers, and let's not have a totally silly fight, } > } > I don't think we're having a fight at all. } } Well, I wanted to make a pre-emptive comment. I wasn't meaning to } presume ... it's just that I seem to have this knack for inciting people } to say really hostile things (although, I like to think it's not ALWAYS } me that has issues ...) :-P :} I'm pretty good at it myself. I don't think this is an appropriate place for it. It usually just makes eveyone involved look ridiculous anyway. ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 09-Jul-2004 Time: 13:49:39 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

Chris Pickett wrote: What I meant to say was, every piece is essential in a fluid, well-functioning system, and there is no differentiation between them, but if one insists on drawing a line somewhere then it's between kernel space and userland. Including music stuff :) Chris

On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } > } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > } > On 08-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } > } } > } > } I've encountered / heard of very few shareware developers who } > } > } make a decent programmer's wages from their software. } > } > } > } > Do you always want to work for someone else? I think there needs to be } > } > room for both... just like in other businesses. } > } } > } Well, I guess there's the whole consulting option for free software } > } developers, i.e. develop features for a fee. There's nothing that stops } > } > That's not programming. I don't know if that matters to you. } } Huh? Developing new features (or squashing bugs) surely counts as } programming. I don't mean support issues. Like the Dreamworks paying } Codeweavers example just given by somebody else counts (although perhaps } the example is bad, because it wasn't free, I dunno). "Consulting". Developing features for a fee would fall under the heading of "comissioned work" ...I suppose you can look at that however you like. I don't see it as producing ones own work {I guess I wasn't all that clear.} } > } the developer from keeping the changes private between him and the } > } client either, if the client is worried about competition. Personally, } > } > The GPL? } } All the GPL says is that you must promise to give the source code to } anybody you provide a binary to, for up to three years, and if they make } derivations and distribute binaries, they must also promise source code } to the recipients. Specifically, it does NOT say, "you must make all } GPL'd software you release available to the public, even if you haven't } given said public copies of your program." If you pay me $5000 for } GPL'd software, we can sign an agreement that I won't give it to anyone } else for 6 months, and neither will you, and we'll both still get the } source code. This is a key business point, IMO. I suppose you and I are reading this a bit differently. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic I have no profit motive though. } > } I want to work for somebody else, but in an environment where I feel } > } like it's working for myself, but serving the rest of society (e.g. } > } university, research institute, whatever). Working for customers and } > } clients just isn't what I want. } > } > I can see that. Art is a bit too "self expressive" to allow one to do that } > and } > be content with it. It's just too restrictive. For me anyway... } } It's interesting to think about what leads to good art. Some people } think all truly great art is born out of hardship and poverty. I myself } think money often destroys art (programming and music both being forms } of art). I think money tends to change the artists priorities. The work itself needs to be the first priority. Ideally, I think art needs to be sold after it's done. There shouldn't be any outside constraints, etc... Commercial quality is commercial quality because it has to take commercial constraints into consideration. {deadlines, workflow, templating, etc...} } > } > You are probably right about the greater good... I'm a strong believer } > } > choice though. } > } } > } I guess ultimately I have the opinion that since we have this amazing } > } free operating system, that's literally been the product of a } > } generation's work, it doesn't make sense to turn it into a wasteland. } > } We've already got Windows for that ... } > } > I'm thinking more along the lines of a open source system with shareware } > apps. } > I think the system itself would go down the tubes if you started getting } > internal competition, etc. } } I guess ... I guess I've stopped distinguishing between system and } application. Is Mozilla part of the system? Or is it definitely an } application? Do you define application by replaceable, non-essential } part? What's essential? Is X essential? How about bash? Is the linux } kernel even essential? Can't you run this software with a different } kernel? I basically view everything as a set of interoperating programs } -- including the music stuff -- although I might concede that the kernel } is perhaps the only "true" system component. If it's essential for system operation {I think this has to include X because so many apps are dependant on it.} it's system. I imagine this could vary depending the function of the system... For the most part I think it's pretty clear cut. ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 09-Jul-2004 Time: 15:01:23 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

On 11-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } Hi Rick, } } Sorry for the delay responding. Since Thursday, have seen Ibrahim } Ferrer, Dianne Reeves, Carol Welsman, Peter Cincotti, Oliver Jones, and } Oscar Peterson at the Montreal Jazz Festival. CW was okay, the rest } were amazing! I'm not really a fan of modern-day jazz {prefering noise, electronic bleeps, concrete, spacey stuff {TD, Jarre, etc..}, experimental stuff, and rock {Maybe a bit of classical} I really prefer *old* school jazz. I will not listen to fusion.} Most of those people elude me. } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } > } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > } > The GPL? } > } } > } All the GPL says is that you must promise to give the source code to } > } anybody you provide a binary to, for up to three years, and if they make } > } derivations and distribute binaries, they must also promise source code } > } to the recipients. Specifically, it does NOT say, "you must make all } > } GPL'd software you release available to the public, even if you haven't } > } given said public copies of your program." If you pay me $5000 for } > } GPL'd software, we can sign an agreement that I won't give it to anyone } > } else for 6 months, and neither will you, and we'll both still get the } > } source code. This is a key business point, IMO. } > } > I suppose you and I are reading this a bit differently. } > } > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic } } I think that's consistent with what I wrote. Read the FAQ (or the } license itself) pretending you have been paid to develop GPL'd software } for a client, and ask yourself if you or they are required to give it to } anyone else. Also read the next next question about demanding a copy. } } Section 6 does say, "You may not impose any further } restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." } } so that probably means you can't make them sign an NDA. It does sound } like you could work out a mutual understanding like, "if either of us } gives this to anyone else, our employment contract is void". } } Anyway, I don't think this is necessarily "right" (especially if the } source _never_ gets released to the public), but if businessmen / } researchers are that worried about competition, it seems like a good } option for keeping ahead of the game a bit. I don't think there's an argument... I think it's just in the way you look at it. I have no intention of charging for programming. If I were to do anything open source my intent would be to give it away. I doubt any other solution would even occur to me. {:} It never has...} } > } > I'm thinking more along the lines of a open source system with } > shareware } > } > apps. } > } > I think the system itself would go down the tubes if you started } > getting } > } > internal competition, etc. } > } } > } I guess ... I guess I've stopped distinguishing between system and } > } application. Is Mozilla part of the system? Or is it definitely an } > } application? Do you define application by replaceable, non-essential } > } part? What's essential? Is X essential? How about bash? Is the linux } > } kernel even essential? Can't you run this software with a different } > } kernel? I basically view everything as a set of interoperating programs } > } -- including the music stuff -- although I might concede that the kernel } > } is perhaps the only "true" system component. } > } > If it's essential for system operation {I think this has to include X } > because } > so many apps are dependant on it.} it's system. I imagine this could vary } > depending the function of the system... For the most part I think it's } > pretty } > clear cut. } } I guess for me the components of a system are defined by ones' } workcycle, and would include a mastering tool and sequencer for an audio } system, and a photo editor in a graphics workstation. I spend 8-10 } hours a day connected via ssh to a headless machine, without any X } forwarding at all -- X isn't really part of that system. } } Moreover, I see a system as a collection of boxes, holding programs. } You can fill the boxes as you see fit, and organize them to work with } each other to achieve a goal. All of the boxes used to meet a given } goal are essential. There is no difference between them, except that } some will be used for almost every task (e.g. kernel box). } } In a _good_ system, each box interacts easily with the others, and } redundancy between them is reduced. And, with open standards and open } source, it's easier to enhance or replace pieces that aren't working } well, for whatever reason. I was envisioning a standard desktop system {word processor, financial stuff, net stuff, audio, video, etc...} in which the only essential anything is the system. {I'd include an audio or video workstation in that... they're still diverse enough that you can make a distinction between essential and non-essential fairly easily {applications being interchangeable for the most part and "essential", in this case, meaning the system software} Of course... on an Oracle server anything other than the Oracle software is non-essential. :} I think the distinction is fairly arbitrary and should probabably depend entirely on whether or not the developer wants to charge for their software and just how they decide to license it. This would be the one major problem I have with "open source" and to some extent with the GPL. In practice it seems to me that, more often than not, one doesn't really have a choice. An example that's pretty easy would be linux audio... copyrighted stuff seems to pretty much excluded. If that's the case... I don't see any future at all for this movement. Folk that get excluded are going to walk away... there's going to be all sorts of {more} bad blood and I, frankly, just don't see it going anywhere. This whole thing depends on much cooperation. There needs to be a way to reconcile things... I think shareware fits that need fairly well. {Exclusionary anything just sucks.} To me... the "Linux Audio Developers" are the couple thousand{s} or so folk that have contributed to this since the beginning. Much of that software is copyrighted. I think those folk deserve to be recognized and included and should be able to charge for their stuff if that's the way they choose to live their life. } However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor } lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease } interoperability betw For some strange reason this message ends right here... {It's either the fact that I rearranged mailboxes last night or it's that consultants web page, filled with all them lovely escape sequences, that someone sent me... {most of this mailbox is like this.} feel free to mail me the rest of it should you still have it. {sorry} ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 12-Jul-2004 Time: 04:06:35 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

On 12-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: } > On 11-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: } > } Sorry for the delay responding. Since Thursday, have seen Ibrahim } > } Ferrer, Dianne Reeves, Carol Welsman, Peter Cincotti, Oliver Jones, and } > } Oscar Peterson at the Montreal Jazz Festival. CW was okay, the rest } > } were amazing! } > } > I'm not really a fan of modern-day jazz {prefering noise, electronic } > concrete, spacey stuff {TD, Jarre, etc..}, experimental stuff, and rock } > a bit of classical} I really prefer *old* school jazz. I will not listen to } > fusion.} Most of those people elude me. } } Ibrahim Ferrer is a singer as part of the (defunct?) Buena Vista Social } Club and they were playing cuban jazz. Dianne Reeves sings and her } biggest inspiration is Sarah Vaughan. Peter Cincotti is this } 20-year-old prodigy who sings and plays songs by the old crooners, and } writes some new things in an old style as well. Oliver Jones and Oscar } Peterson are two of Canada's finest and oldest jazz pianists, and it was } pure bliss when they brought two pianos on stage for two final encores. } Definitely old school! (we also saw Gary Burton (vibraphone) and } Chick Corea (piano), but that was prior to Thursday) Peterson and Corea {And Vaughan} I'm familiar with. Corea falls into the category of fusion {my opinion} most of the time. By old school I mean anything pre '7o or so... Since then I think jazz has been better represented by other genres. In the '6os jazz still offered something interesting in and of itself. } > This would be the one major problem I have with "open source" and to some } > extent with the GPL. In practice it seems to me that, more often than not, } > one doesn't really have a choice. } > } > An example that's pretty easy would be linux audio... copyrighted stuff } > to pretty much excluded. If that's the case... I don't see any future at } > for this movement. Folk that get excluded are going to walk away... there's } > going to be all sorts of {more} bad blood and I, frankly, just don't see it } > going anywhere. This whole thing depends on much cooperation. There needs } > to be a way to reconcile things... I think shareware fits that need } > } > {Exclusionary anything just sucks.} } > } > To me... the "Linux Audio Developers" are the couple thousand{s} or so } > that have contributed to this since the beginning. Much of that software is } > copyrighted. I think those folk deserve to be recognized and included and } > should be able to charge for their stuff if that's the way they choose to } > live their life. } } Just a clarification: everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly } released into the public domain. That's why these licenses work. I'm familiar with copyrights. :} Artists have been using them since, maybe, before programmers. } The truncated paragraph said: } } "However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor } lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease } interoperability between programs and flexibility in the system. They } allow for only one box per program, and furthermore make one subscribe } to their whole subsystem of boxes to get something usable. It's like } when Lego started making wall pieces instead of just individual blocks } to build them." You mean like the idea that Jack works with only a select set of programs? It's actually sort of funny to watch all of the obvious manipulations and games that get played in the commercial arena. {It would be funnier if my wallet didn't feel the effects} It would genuinely suck to see that sort of thing get started in linux. Linux has always been about as open as it's possible to get... that's why it's an interesting system and why, I think, so many folk have been drawn too it. } I realize the Lego analogy is a little broken. } } Anyway, at the end of the day, if Linux Audio started to need non-free } stuff to be good, I'd just buy a Mac. For me, the core of what makes Linux has always included a large number of non-free programs. If you're obsessive like I am and run around checking out every available program that a given platform has to offer... Linux can include a very large number of traditionally copyrighted and commercial programs. I think linux needs to include a number of large commercial offerings like those solutions provided by Oracle and IBM. {Money... and all of the benefits that might be derived from it.} To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important than the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really usable and actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate structure... The idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit dillettante and maybe a bit too high minded and idealistic to be practical. It's simply too open to politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse {even racism... see Elvis} to be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel this way about the internet itself. I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I don't think I am in my feelings about "open source".} } the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful } unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free. I think the } reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well } release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified. As for music I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is at the heart of the problem I described above. } shareware developers, frankly I think they'd have a better time writing } for OS X anyway, as a real shareware community actually exists. Then they should just go away? ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 12-Jul-2004 Time: 18:51:34 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: You did say, "linux audio... copyrighted stuff to pretty much excluded," and later, "Much of that software is copyrighted," so I don't think that was particularly unfair. I wasn't aware that Jack not operating with all programs was a competitive thing, and involved money or patents or nasty licensing at all ... I thought it was because other apps simply hadn't caught up yet. I guess I'll have to read about it a bit. So, I'm glad you recognize that ... I think those kind of things can help corporations who have more money than time to throw at a problem, but am unclear as to the benefit that the ordinary user derives from them, although it probably exists. To my knowledge, my system is entirely open source, with the exception of acroread and flash, and it runs well. On the desktop, I think paid-for corporate involvement can help with unification efforts, packaging, and hardware support issues, but that it's better if the changes are freed eventually. I give away free time to F/OSS, and have made less-than-profitable career choices (i.e. grad school) so that I could hack on free software, why should I be expected to receive with open arms people who want to build upon this free base and not give back, let alone _pay_ for it? I think corporations are the only ones really willing to pay for individual applications on Linux. I'm personally not shelling out for shareware when I can read, test, and contribute to free software. Time is money, I guess, and that's how I'd like to pay, even if it costs me more after the conversion (which indicates "libre" is more important than "gratis" to me). I think other people feel the same way. So, yes, from a business perspective, shareware developers for Linux should go away and target OS X instead. From an ethical perspective, as long as I'm not forced to use it and there always exist alternatives, I guess I don't mind. I start to mind when everybody just uses the non-free stuff and this results in the death of otherwise good free projects. Like Tim just said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, since I'm not likely to convince you that 100% free is a good and realistic thing, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise (I know _I'm_ starting to repeat myself). I hope at least we can see a little where the other is coming from now :) Cheers, Chris

On 08-Jul-2004 reed wrote: } At 21.29 08/07/04, you wrote: } >I am prepared to spend $10.00 or $15.00 towards the } >purchase of something if I know that money will be } >well spent. If a couple hundred of us do that, we'll } >make a hell of a contribution to our favorite project. } My 20.00 $ is ready to send!! I'm not joking.. I've already paid for at least a dozen distributions, an easy $1000.oo in books from various publishers {Though mostly O'Reilly}, etc, etc... Where are you suggesting we send $20.oo? ---------------------------------- E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net Date: 08-Jul-2004 Time: 15:19:05 This message was sent by XFMail ----------------------------------

R Parker wrote: It was only a couple of years that ago that people started taking Linux seriously for graphics work, and it is becoming more and more prominent especially in the motion picture post-production/visual FX industry... open source/free software even, not just ports of commercial applications. I can only hope that people will start taking Linux for audio use seriously... especially for the starving musician who can;t afford to shell out $500 for Finale or $700 or more for DAW software. -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom.

Them wrote: In that case, it would seem to be a good idea to go after the users of pirated music apps, which are widely available on p2p networks, and convince them to switch. The viable arguments I can think of are, "you don't have to feel guilty; you can talk without worry about the software you've got installed; if you want a feature or enhancement you can communicate with the developers; you don't have to worry about downloading 10 versions of Cubase SX trying to find one that works; and upgrades are generally seamless." That's the reality. You can get $10000 of pro studio software with a couple days of downloading in Windows, and that's why I think more people aren't using Linux for audio. In fact, it's for reasons like this that sometimes I think I'm almost _pro_ DRM / M$ pwnz you / big brother is eating your babies for breakfast kind of software and legislation. Cheers, Chris

RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote: Actually, I use Moho... it's pretty cool, and even supports IK. Amazing that it isn't marketed more aggressively. It's only $99.00 and is pretty advanced. If you can get it to run. Jahshaka and Kino are moving along as free alternative, but of course they can't compare to Adobe or Avid software. Open EXR is probably the most famous... many Linux graphics apps support it directly (CinePaint, K-3D, for instance). -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom.

RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote: Yeah, I do, too. Which reminds me of another audio application needed under Linux: an application for handling animation lip-syncing, along the lines of Magpie. There is a free app called Pamela, written in Python, that might not be too difficult to port to Linux. I'd thought about starting up something on SF, but got too many other projects going right now to be able to concentrate on it. Jahshaka's very incomplete... it's been dragging it's feet for a couple of years now without a whole of development going on (except the website saying how great it's gonna be when it's done). At the very least, Kino is being actively developed and doesn't crash constantly. I do admit Kino's user interface is pretty amateurish, but I think they are focusing more on stability and functionality than making it look pretty. If Kino became a JACK application, there might be better options of synching audio and video here also. I'm planning on using K-3D & the Gimp to create art for CD covers. :-) -- Brett

RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote: Oh, that would be handy for doing Fantasia type stuff, indeed! -- Brett

RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote: This is probably off topic, but Linux does seem to have a deficiency in 2d graphics (color processing stuff for pre-press). Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

I'd say it is off topic, unless you are creating CD artwork for litho printing. You should check out the latest version of Scribus, which has colour management support. Also I believe Gimp 2.0 has a CMYK mode, although I haven't had a chance to explore that yet. Ghostscript has pre-press features now, and there are a number of software RIPs based on Linux. Caldera Graphics used to produce one. I've been using Quark Xpress/Photoshop for about 9 years, but now that PDF is an acceptable pre-press format I'd like to think that Scribus/Gimp is a viable alternative. Cheers Daniel