Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th May 2009 19:06 UTC
Linux We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
Permalink for comment 364508
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: *sigh*
by El_Exigente on Wed 20th May 2009 08:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: *sigh*"
Member since:

"Yeah, and you think that Audio apps are going to star appearing the same time the kernel is fixed... Magically, because thousands of developers were just waiting for the kernel to be fixed... Especially a "fixed" that is not fundamental for Linux to work, because it is optional. (. . . )

Developing software is a very complex and difficult task. Applications do not appear like magic.

Magic: ====>


Oh my.
Well, since you insist, let's just take a look at the apps you mention.

Renoise: Mod Tracker. Welcome to 1994!

EnergyXT: Did you actually read the user comments on link you posted?
Although that is not to say that it is not useful, but EnergyXT is not capable of being the heart of a pro studio. If you read the comments, you mightn't want to use it aat all - assuming, in the first place, that its design philosphy lends itself to the kind of music you want to make.

ArdourXchange: Good luck! Even DigiDesign can't (or, possibly, won't) make AAF's interoperable between their own apps! Unless the maintainers want to constantly be chasing a moving target, ArdourXchange is of questionable utility, even if only because its only purpose is to import AAF's into Ardour. Many DAW's have integrated AAF/OMF import and export as standard components or optional add-ons. ArdourXchange's inability to export Ardour sessions in AAF format is a very serious shortcoming.

As for Rosegarden and Ardour, all I can say is, you have no idea. These are completely unacceptable for real studios. There is a reason why professionals stay away from these apps in droves, although, to be fair, this could be a combination of the app itself, and the fact that they run on Linux. Yet, on the other hand, it is also necessary to take into account the extreme competitiveness of the world of profession recording and music production: if these apps offered any conceivable advantage over the more common Windows and OSX offerings, they would find a significant userbase. They haven't. If, for example, you have never engineered a recording session for paying clients, then it is possible to understand why you would think that these are anything more than amateur apps. In fact, this applies to your whole post: it could only have been drawn up by someone completely unfamilar with the subject at hand. Acceptable DAW's are: Nuendo, Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar, Digital Performer, Logic. Traktion, Ableton Live, Sony Acid, and FL Studio are also extremely powerful and sophisticated music production environments as is Propellerheads Reason (although Reason is far too insular, in my view.) The one and only acceptable DAW available for Linux is the ported-from-Windows Reaper, and some people simply find it to be unacceptable (although it answers the needs of other people quite well.) However, regardless of the suitability of Reaper as a DAW, the adoption of Linux as a professional recording platform will always be as limited as the availability of professional-grade audio interfaces for it. (But such availability is to be understand a necessary but not a sufficient condition for broader adoption of Linux for professional music production,)

There seem to be some useful, if feature-limited, wave editors available for Linux.

As for Pure Data, SuperCollider, ChuckY, and Csound: Most musicians and sound engineers are not, and do not want to become, computer programmers. These highly complex and non-intuitive programming environments - which are also available for Windows and Mac, have, in spite of some of them being around since the 1990's, found only a very very limited userbase. There could be no more damning indictment of Linux's suitability - or lack thereof - for broad adoption by recording professionals and musicians than the fact that you have listed them among the "highlights" of Linux audio software. But then again, since you seem to be more or less unacquainted with the needs of musicians and recording professionals, perhaps we should not take that too seriously.

Edited 2009-05-20 08:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1