Christmas: Why Linux is Better for Music (Ghost of Flatfish Past)
High Plains Thumper
to be a worthy operating system for many mission critical server and
stable desktop environment tasks. Music is an area Linux shines.
With humour regarding a COLA troll, who seemed to have lost its way. I
am glad I don't need $5,000 US to front a home music studio.
[quote]
Singer [Flatfish] wrote:
> philicorda wrote:
>> Singer [Flatfish] wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Linux is a good solution for some things, making music isn't one
>>> of them.
>>
>> Have you tried any of the music software on Linux?
>
> Yes I have. It took me 3 days just to get Jack running without Xruns
> on a Delta 1010.
>
> Then there was Ardour crashing intermittantly on a save.
http://tracker.ardour.org/view.php?id=1865#bugnotes
[quote]
ID: 0001865 [ardour] bugs crash always 09-11-07 14:23
Reporter sebos69
Assigned To paul
Priority normal Resolution fixed
Status resolved
Product Version 2.0
Summary 0001865: ardour crashes when loading session
Description With ardour 2.05 SVN
when I try to re-open a saved session, ardour crashes without any
message (only "segmentation fault"
I join the saved session, this is the only information I have....
[/quote]
[quote]
Notes (0004354) sebos69 09-11-07 18:44
Nevermind, the crash disappeared after an upgrade... you can delete the
bug. Sorry for the noise
[/quote]
> Of course that was after realizing I had to run all these things as
> root to get priority.
http://ardour.org/system_requirements
[quote]
It is not possible for regular users on a normal Linux system to get
solid realtime performance, and so to avoid having to run all your audio
software as root (a very bad idea), there is a second kernel patch that
is very desirable. This is the "capabilities" patch. Its very small, but
it allows ordinary users to gain access to the powerful real-time
scheduling policies and memory locking of the Linux kernel.
[/quote]
> Then I was getting sample mismatch and "device already in use"
> messages which is where I discovered that there is a difference
> between "Default" and Hw0:0, despite Hw0:0 BEING default or something
> like that. Then of course I learned that arts is not really the same
> as artsd or whatever the server version is called. I don't remember,
> but I had to kill some sound process to get Jack to even run.
> Linux has way too many sound drivers, just like Linux has way to many
> versions.
Oh, really?
> All it does is confuse things for the user. I never did get it to run
> in realtime mode.
>
> And like I said the interface with Ardour is terrible. Rosegarden
> isn't too bad but it's no Cubase. And what about the list of plugins
> I listed, like Ivory or control surfaces and firewire interfaces?
Current version of Cubase full is $1,000 US.
> I gave up on Linux and audio after screwing with it for about 5 days.
> Why bother? Like the typical Linux application you'll spend all your
> time screwing around trying to make it work instead of actually using
> it.
>
> I installed Nuendo in 10 minutes and was up and running. Linux is at
> least 10 years behind the other platforms when it comes to music and
> audio and until the powers that control Linux's destiny decide to
> settle on one sound system, it will remain that way.
Nuendo 3 is $2,500 US.
I have a couple comments.
Pricey proprietary applications will always have nice features in them.
This is expected, the provider does this to meet needs and is warranted
to be compensated for them.
However, pricey products does not a professional make.
Linux available tools mentioned above along with other Linux
applications meet niches, have professional developers and sponsors.
Some of it is provided as a labour of love.
In some ways it may miss some "spit and polish". However, they can be
made to work, require a little more work, but IMHO, once one has gotten
them up and running, can accomplish significant work.
Example, to create professional results, a photographer on a budget can
make do with a Yashica FX3 manual SLR, selectively purchased cost
effective lenses, high powered budget minded flashes (Vivitar 285), home
made PVC flash stands, aluminised home builder's foam board for
reflectors, etc. (BTDT). He doesn't need 5K quid worth of equipment.
Another example, a musician does not need a professional model Yamaha
saxophone costing $5K US to produce professional results. Yes, that sax
will have slightly smoother action, perhaps a little better intonation
(in tune) through its range and a slightly better tone indistinquishable
to the average listener).
I've played Buffet pro clarinets from the '70s that did not play in
tune. I had to play them in tune. First clarinet that played in tune
was a Selmer Bundy beginner model plastic clarinet of the '80s.
Expensive equipment does not a professional make.
Not all of us have the financial resources to purchase high end hardware
and software applications. That will not stop us from producing high
quality results.
If you do not have the patience to select the appropriate operating
system or patches for real time work, spending a little time in setting
up the environment, making use of the different available tools to
accomplish same result and imagination, by all means, invest $5,000 US
into your home studio.
For the rest of us who work and do this as a hobby, or even professional
who have a niche to meet and budget to manage, we will make these cost
effective tools and applications work. We don't need an investment
portfolio to fund our projects.
[/quote]
27 Sep 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f8ff83eaf9d28393
--
HPT
Amanda Shithousedoor
news:hgc1rd$81r$1...@news.albasani.net...
> We are now entering into the holiday of cheer. Linux has shown itself
> to be a worthy operating system for many mission critical server and
> stable desktop environment tasks. Music is an area Linux shines.
>
> With humour regarding a COLA troll, who seemed to have lost its way. I
> am glad I don't need $5,000 US to front a home music studio.
Aaaargh!, some freetard crap-junk proggie, eh!
Go here:
http://down.cd/info_2913.html
>
> [quote]
Why are you always posting other peoples stuff.
Don't you have opinions and thoughts? Are you retarded or something?
Use the sig below, no need to thank me!
--
High Plains Thumper <> writes:
>
> One time I told one rider, the reason why he needed a bigger
> motorcycle was to make up for a small dick, when he criticised mine.
It must have hurt when he criticised your dick. What were you doing
showing it to him?
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t699598-p2-mac-bashers.html
TomB
> High Plains Thumper <> writes:
>>
>> One time I told one rider, the reason why he needed a bigger
>> motorcycle was to make up for a small dick, when he criticised mine.
This sentence is quoted so often that I simply *have* to comment on
it. The people that can't understand that 'mine' refers to
'motorcycle' rather than 'dick' are just stupid. Really stupid.
Is the sentence well written? Sure not.
Is it absolutely clear what is meant? Absolutely!
Now y'all stop quoting this with the smart-ass 'what where you doing
showing him your dick' remark. It's stupid. Really stupid.
Jezus tapdancing Christ on a rubber cross...
--
If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck
Norris has more money than you.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> "High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
> news:hgc1rd$81r$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> We are now entering into the holiday of cheer. Linux has shown itself
>> to be a worthy operating system for many mission critical server and
>> stable desktop environment tasks. Music is an area Linux shines.
>>
>> With humour regarding a COLA troll, who seemed to have lost its way. I
>> am glad I don't need $5,000 US to front a home music studio.
>
> Aaaargh!, some freetard crap-junk proggie, eh!
Flatfish is the freetard.
He was COMPLAINING that FREE software didn't have all the lovely features of
software costing thousands of dollars. If that's not freetardism, I don't
know what is.
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Chris Ahlstrom
> Now y'all stop quoting this with the smart-ass 'what where you doing
> showing him your dick' remark. It's stupid. Really stupid.
>
> Jezus tapdancing Christ on a rubber cross...
Interesting Tom!
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:6f8:202:377::2
--
Gratitude and treachery are merely the two extremities of the same procession.
You have seen all of it that is worth staying for when the band and the gaudy
officials have gone by.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
TomB
> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Now y'all stop quoting this with the smart-ass 'what where you doing
>> showing him your dick' remark. It's stupid. Really stupid.
>>
>> Jezus tapdancing Christ on a rubber cross...
>
> Interesting Tom!
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:6f8:202:377::2
Ah, just a ipv6 tunnel I got from sixxs.net about a year ago. No
'real' ipv6 in Begium yet. I mainly use it for testing ipv6 enabled
F/OSS.
--
This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers.
~ Randal Graves
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Now y'all stop quoting this with the smart-ass 'what where you doing
>> showing him your dick' remark. It's stupid. Really stupid.
>>
>> Jezus tapdancing Christ on a rubber cross...
>
> Interesting Tom!
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:6f8:202:377::2
>
:)
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
TomB
> usenet's gone ipv6? Whatever next?
>:)
Something old, something new ;-)
--
Let there be Rock!
~ Bon Scott
High Plains Thumper
> Amanda Shithousedoor hastily babble:
>> High Plains Thumper schreef...
>>
>>> We are now entering into the holiday of cheer. Linux has shown
>>> itself to be a worthy operating system for many mission critical
>>> server and stable desktop environment tasks. Music is an area
>>> Linux shines.
>>>
>>> With humour regarding a COLA troll, who seemed to have lost its
>>> way. I am glad I don't need $5,000 US to front a home music
>>> studio.
>>
>> Aaaargh!, some freetard crap-junk proggie, eh!
>
> Flatfish is the freetard. He was COMPLAINING that FREE software
> didn't have all the lovely features of software costing thousands of
> dollars. If that's not freetardism, I don't know what is.
Not also to mention that Flatfish is also a software thief.
--
HPT
Il mittente di questo messaggio |The sender of this message
corrisponde ad un utente reale |corresponds to a real person
e ad un indirizzo fittizio alle |and to a fictitious address
risposte più posteriori dell' |to hinder idiot answers
idiota Per maggiori informazioni|For more info
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com
Hadron
> And verily, didst Amanda Shithousedoor <ama...@nospam.eu> hastily babble thusly:
>> "High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
>> news:hgc1rd$81r$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> We are now entering into the holiday of cheer. Linux has shown itself
>>> to be a worthy operating system for many mission critical server and
>>> stable desktop environment tasks. Music is an area Linux shines.
>>>
>>> With humour regarding a COLA troll, who seemed to have lost its way. I
>>> am glad I don't need $5,000 US to front a home music studio.
>>
>> Aaaargh!, some freetard crap-junk proggie, eh!
>
> Flatfish is the freetard.
> He was COMPLAINING that FREE software didn't have all the lovely features of
> software costing thousands of dollars. If that's not freetardism, I don't
> know what is.
Correct. You don't know. As, like most freetards, you are in
denial. Freetardism is nothing to do with the quality as MOST freetards
here use closed source Windows to make their money.
Mind you, you're on record as saying stealing others peoples music and
SW off the Internet is not actually stealing as it doesn't directly hurt
people or involve tangible shrink wrapped products.
Freetard is spelt "spike".
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Mind you, you're on record as saying stealing others peoples music and
> SW off the Internet is not actually stealing as it doesn't directly hurt
> people or involve tangible shrink wrapped products.
Putting words in my mouth again, I see?
Point out where I said "It doesn't actually hurt people"?
EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU DRAG THIS OLD CHESTNUT UP, WHICH MUST BE DOZENS BY
NOW, I HAVE TO CORRECT YOU.
Are you dim or something?
Copyright infringement is not and has never been theft. No physical property
has been removed, something has been copied. THEFT is the removal of
SOMETHING that prevents the owner from access to it without permission.
Copyright infringement is still illegal, but IT IS NOT THEFT.
There, not shut the hell up you annoying little turd.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Hadron
> And verily, didst Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> Mind you, you're on record as saying stealing others peoples music and
>> SW off the Internet is not actually stealing as it doesn't directly hurt
>> people or involve tangible shrink wrapped products.
>
> Putting words in my mouth again, I see?
> Point out where I said "It doesn't actually hurt people"?
> EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU DRAG THIS OLD CHESTNUT UP, WHICH MUST BE DOZENS BY
> NOW, I HAVE TO CORRECT YOU.
>
> Are you dim or something?
>
> Copyright infringement is not and has never been theft. No physical property
> has been removed, something has been copied. THEFT is the removal of
> SOMETHING that prevents the owner from access to it without permission.
>
> Copyright infringement is still illegal, but IT IS NOT THEFT.
>
> There, not shut the hell up you annoying little turd.
See. You think downloading peoples SW illegally is not stealing.
Thanks for the confirmation.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>
> See. You think downloading peoples SW illegally is not stealing.
It isn't stealing.
It doesn't make it right though.
The way you keep harping on about it, (and don't deny saying it), "I
advocate software piracy".
This, of course, is just more plain and simple hardon droppings.
And you can't get more simple than hadron.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Hadron
> And verily, didst Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>>> There, not shut the hell up you annoying little turd.
>>
>> See. You think downloading peoples SW illegally is not stealing.
>
> It isn't stealing.
> It doesn't make it right though.
> The way you keep harping on about it, (and don't deny saying it), "I
> advocate software piracy".
>
> This, of course, is just more plain and simple hardon droppings.
>
> And you can't get more simple than hadron.
It is stealing. And all your mealy mouthed reference book referrals
does not alter that.
It does hurt people. It hurts the people trying to sell it when they see
their hard work flying around for free.
It has effectively stolen income from them.
Chris Ahlstrom
> And verily, didst Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> Mind you, you're on record as saying stealing others peoples music and
>> SW off the Internet is not actually stealing as it doesn't directly hurt
>> people or involve tangible shrink wrapped products.
>
> Putting words in my mouth again, I see?
> Point out where I said "It doesn't actually hurt people"?
> EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU DRAG THIS OLD CHESTNUT UP, WHICH MUST BE DOZENS BY
> NOW, I HAVE TO CORRECT YOU.
>
> Are you dim or something?
Probably. But the real reason "Hadron" does that is because he "likes to
see them twitch."
That is, he's pervert, and hence a troll.
> Copyright infringement is not and has never been theft. No physical property
> has been removed, something has been copied. THEFT is the removal of
> SOMETHING that prevents the owner from access to it without permission.
>
> Copyright infringement is still illegal, but IT IS NOT THEFT.
>
> There, not shut the hell up you annoying little turd.
"Hadron" is far worse than just an "annoying little turd."
--
Slow day. Practice crawling.
High Plains Thumper
> spike1 pulled:
>> Hadron babble:
>>
>>> Mind you, you're on record as saying stealing others peoples
>>> music and SW off the Internet is not actually stealing as it
>>> doesn't directly hurt people or involve tangible shrink wrapped
>>> products.
>>
>> Putting words in my mouth again, I see? Point out where I said "It
>> doesn't actually hurt people"? EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU DRAG THIS
>> OLD CHESTNUT UP, WHICH MUST BE DOZENS BY NOW, I HAVE TO CORRECT
>> YOU.
>>
>> Are you dim or something?
>
> Probably. But the real reason "Hadron" does that is because he
> "likes to see them twitch." That is, he's pervert, and hence a troll.
Yeah, he rarely ever has anything worthwhile to say, and frankly some of
his replies are quite idiotic. A recent example of wrongness:
GeoH: "BASIC was then the entry level language, which a person could in
their spare time with the home computer learn the basics of programming.
Even thought not all the BASIC's were powerful, the 8-bit CPU
instruction set was simple enough that one could learn how to create
subroutines embedded in BASIC comment statements, which through the EXEC
command could execute. Many though not all of the BASIC's were written
by Microsoft."
Hadron: "Sorry? Most home computer Basic's were nothing to do with
Microsoft."
Peter Köhlmann: "Wrong on all accounts. The vast majority of those
BASICs came from MS"
HPT: "Peter, you are correct and Hadron is woefully incorrect, as stated:
[quote]
After the initial success of Altair BASIC, Microsoft BASIC became the
basis for a lucrative software licensing business, being ported to the
majority of the numerous home and personal computers of the 1970s and
especially the 1980s, and extended along the way. Contrary to the
original Altair BASIC, most home computer BASICs were resident in ROM,
and thus were available on the machines at power-on in the form of the
characteristic "READY."-prompt. Hence, Microsoft's and other variants of
BASIC constituted a significant and visible part of many home computers'
rudimentary operating systems.
[/quote] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_BASIC
--
HPT
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> their hard work flying around for free.
When did I say it didn't?
High Plains Thumper
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> And verily, didst Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> It does hurt people. It hurts the people trying to sell it when they see
>> their hard work flying around for free.
>
> When did I say it didn't?
Many things "hurts people trying to sell it".
The pirates are at the end of a rather long line really.
--
Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
affairs, government and business.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Hadron: "Sorry? Most home computer Basic's were nothing to do with
> Microsoft."
Hah, typical hadron.
Oh, if you took all the 8 bits as equals, then yes, M$ BASIC was in the
minority, they did the MSX machines and Commodore mainly.
THEN, all the other 8 bits released would've outweighed the microsoft
variants (there were one HELL of a lot of 8 bit machines released in the
early 80s)
But commodore dominated the american market with their Pets, Vic20s and
commodore 64/128/+4/16's. And they were quite prominent in the UK and rest
of the world too. (though the spectrum with Sinclair BASIC gave them a jolly
good run for their money in the UK and some other european and south
american countries)
Every commodore machine ever built apart from the Amiga came with commodore
BASIC on ROM.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper babble thusly:
>
>> Hadron: "Sorry? Most home computer Basic's were nothing to do with
>> Microsoft."
>
> Hah, typical hadron. Oh, if you took all the 8 bits as equals, then
> yes, M$ BASIC was in the minority, they did the MSX machines and
> Commodore mainly.
I don't know if MS was in the minority, but at least in the home
computer market they were dominant:
Variants and derivatives of Microsoft BASIC
* Altair BASIC (MITS Altair and other S-100 computers)
* Amiga BASIC (Commodore Amiga family)
* Applesoft BASIC (Apple II family)
* Atari Microsoft BASIC I and II (Atari 8-bit family)
* BASICA ("BASIC Advanced") (PC-DOS, on IBM PC)
* Color BASIC (TRS-80 Color Computer)
* Commodore BASIC (Commodore 8-bit family, incl C64)
* Extended Color BASIC (TRS-80 Color Computer and Dragon 32/64)
* IBM Cassette BASIC (Original IBM PC, built into ROM)
* Galaksija BASIC (Galaksija home computer)
* GW-BASIC (BASICA for MS-DOS, on PC compatibles)
* Microsoft Level III BASIC (Tandy/Radio-Shack TRS-80)
* MBASIC (CP/M, on 8080/85 and Z80 based computers)
* MS BASIC for Macintosh (Mac OS on Apple Macintosh)
* MSX BASIC (MSX standard home computers)
* N88-BASIC (NEC PC8801/9801)
* N82-BASIC (NEC PC8201/8201A)
* QBasic (PC-DOS/MS-DOS on IBM PC and compatibles)
* QuickBASIC (PC-DOS/MS-DOS on IBM PC and compatibles))
* TRS-80 Level II BASIC (Tandy/Radio-Shack TRS-80)
* Visual Basic (PC-DOS/MS-DOS/MS Windows on IBM PC and compatibles)
* WordBasic (pre-VBA) (MS Windows)
* HP2640 HP2647 Programmable Terminal with AGL graphics extensions
* FreeBASIC - a free clone of the QuickBasic system.
> THEN, all the other 8 bits released would've outweighed the microsoft
> variants (there were one HELL of a lot of 8 bit machines released in
> the early 80s)
There was HP BASIC, which was on all their scientific computers like
HP-85 that I used in college in the early 1980's. The HP-125 that I
used in aerospace was a CP/M-80 machine and came with MS MBASIC.
> But commodore dominated the American market with their Pets, Vic20s
> and commodore 64/128/+4/16's. And they were quite prominent in the UK
> and rest of the world too. (though the spectrum with Sinclair BASIC
> gave them a jolly good run for their money in the UK and some other
> european and south american countries)
I thought Clive Sinclair as rather progressive and willing to think
outside the box with inexpensive computing. Sinclair BASIC on the
Timex-Sinclair 1000 (ZX-81 clone) was a decent basic with trig and
string functions, even plotting functions.
Since the CPU also drove the video refresh (no special GPU),
calculations were done between screen refreshes. One could turn off the
video to accomplish the calculations.
> Every commodore machine ever built apart from the Amiga came with
> commodore BASIC on ROM.
I really miss BASIC, because it was a quick and dirty way to preprocess
data. Nowadays we use spreadsheets to do most of that, but elemental
BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for many
tasks, particularly scientific.
There were even financial and other data base management systems written
in it.
--
HPT
chrisv
>I really miss BASIC, because it was a quick and dirty way to preprocess
>data. Nowadays we use spreadsheets to do most of that, but elemental
>BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for many
>tasks, particularly scientific.
BASIC rulz! I still use it (MS QuickBASIC) on occasion, at work...
--
"Looking at the times when these posts are *regularly* made it seems
that Roy doesn't sleep, attend class or do anything other than post to
COLA" .- Larry "message ID" Qualig, AKA Hadron Quark
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> I really miss BASIC, because it was a quick and dirty way to preprocess
> data. Nowadays we use spreadsheets to do most of that, but elemental
> BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for many
> tasks, particularly scientific.
>
> There were even financial and other data base management systems written
> in it.
>
You don't need to miss it, though
It is a VB-compatible BASIC, which utilizes Qt
Mind that I have not used it beyond testing that it does indeed make it
possible to convert VB-programs
I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
Hadron
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> I really miss BASIC, because it was a quick and dirty way to preprocess
>> data. Nowadays we use spreadsheets to do most of that, but elemental
There was nothing particularly quick or dirty about it. And it sure as
hell is not gone : which you would know if anything you said were true.
>> BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for many
>> tasks, particularly scientific.
LOL. Like what? If it was "adequate" for many tasks then why
"particularly" scientific?
I smell some HPT nonsense ....
>>
>> There were even financial and other data base management systems written
>> in it.
>>
>
> You don't need to miss it, though
>
> http://www.kbasic.de/
He doesn't miss it. If he were so missing it he would know there are
oodles of basics out there. Even on his Windows system.
We won't even go into his gross simplification of the "cpu driving the
screen refresh"" ....
>
> It is a VB-compatible BASIC, which utilizes Qt
>
> Mind that I have not used it beyond testing that it does indeed make it
> possible to convert VB-programs
>
> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> I really miss BASIC, because it was a quick and dirty way to
>>> preprocess
>>> data. Nowadays we use spreadsheets to do most of that, but elemental
>
> There was nothing particularly quick or dirty about it. And it sure as
> hell is not gone : which you would know if anything you said were true.
>
>>> BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for many
>>> tasks, particularly scientific.
>
> LOL. Like what? If it was "adequate" for many tasks then why
> "particularly" scientific?
> I smell some HPT nonsense ....
You should try washing sometimes. It might help keeping that strench at
bay
>>>
>>> There were even financial and other data base management systems
>>> written in it.
>>>
>>
>> You don't need to miss it, though
>>
>> http://www.kbasic.de/
>
> He doesn't miss it. If he were so missing it he would know there are
> oodles of basics out there. Even on his Windows system.
There are no "oodles of basics" out there.
Just few remain
> We won't even go into his gross simplification of the "cpu driving the
> screen refresh"" ....
Can you get any more idiotic?
>>
>> It is a VB-compatible BASIC, which utilizes Qt
>>
>> Mind that I have not used it beyond testing that it does indeed make it
>> possible to convert VB-programs
>>
>> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
>
> Sure you do.
Right, I do.
My current project is basically a total rewrite of a largish Win-only
project which has been kept alive too long
> With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
> never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
Idiot
--
I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
slightly used clues.
Don Zeigler
> Can you get any more idiotic?
He's working on it!
--
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie!"...till you find a rock.
Regards,
[dz]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
High Plains Thumper
> Hadron wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann writes:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for
>>>> many tasks, particularly scientific.
>>
>> LOL. Like what? If it was "adequate" for many tasks then why
>> "particularly" scientific?
>
>> I smell some HPT nonsense ....
>
> You should try washing sometimes. It might help keeping that strench
> at bay
Like you say Peter, I smell an unwashed Wintroll. :-)
--
HPT
Hadron
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Can you get any more idiotic?
>
> He's working on it!
There's enough examples to work on in COLA thats for sure.
Wintrolls Lie
Glad you agree that most of your posts are examples of your idiocy.
Hadron
We both know you don't believe that and we also both know your contrived
answer makes no sense in the context of the thread and my previous
reply. Have a nice evening now.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
>
> <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
>
>> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
>
> Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
> never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
Idiot.
--
Never commit yourself! Let someone else commit you.
Erin Mungan
ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
>
> Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:
>
> > Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
> >
> > <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
> >
> >> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
> >
> > Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
> > never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
>
> Idiot.
If you Linux zealots are trying to compare your free software to
commercial programs like Nuendo, you are out of your collective minds.
http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Nuendo-4-
Advanced-Audio-and-Post-Production-System?sku=703099
Nuendo is $1799.99 BTW, not $5000.00 like you Linux morons claim and it
is worth every penny.
Try running a commercial studio and telling your clients you use Linux.
Those clients will now become ex-clients.
However, you will get to hear their laughter at the other end of the
phone call before they hang up on you.
Linux is great for some applications, servers for example, or embedded
devices like cell phones as another example.
That being said, Linux shouold stay as far away from professional audio
as possible.
Why?
Because Linux hasn't even entered the 1990's let alone the 2000's.
The proof is in the actual useage.
I can't reacll a single professional, commercial, studio that is using
Linux exclusively.
So why not explain why the professional community would not flock to a
free alternative to Nuendo or Protools?
The answer is Linux sucks for this type of application.
Either fix it or shut up because you only look foolish trying to compare
your free garbage-ware to commercial offerings that are used every day
to make the music you listen to.
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <hgjppr$jj0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
>>
>> Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>> > Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
>> >
>> > <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
>> >
>> >> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
>> >
>> > Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
>> > never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> If you Linux zealots are trying to compare your free software to
> commercial programs like Nuendo, you are out of your collective minds.
>
> http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Nuendo-4-
> Advanced-Audio-and-Post-Production-System?sku=703099
>
> Nuendo is $1799.99 BTW, not $5000.00 like you Linux morons claim and it
> is worth every penny.
Hey flatfish, wrong thread. Nothing about professional audio in Hadron and
Peter's little set-to.
I left the cross-post in so that rec.audio.pro will be forewarned should
someone succumb to your silly "wasp and spider in a jar" troll.
--
It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits:
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.
-- Mark Twain
High Plains Thumper
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:42:46 -0500
Message-ID: <MPG.25973cf8c...@news.eternal-september.org>
Hmmmm .... crossposted to rec.audio.pro, seems to be another Flatfish
post .... May be he'll lie again about an advocate mimicking him at
alt.comp.linux-sucks ...
Yup, it's Flatfish, as shown in this other post as Erin Mungan:
[quote]
Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, not a
creature was stirring, not Schestowitz the louse.
The SPAM was queued up in the pipeline with glee in the hope that
some web hits Roy would soon see.
[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/54c30a81acccd925
> ahlstromc says...
>> Hadron pulled:
>>> Peter Köhlmann writes:
>>>
>>> <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
>>>
>>>> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
>>>
>>> Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are
>>> not and never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> If you Linux zealots are trying to compare your free software to
> commercial programs like Nuendo, you are out of your collective
> minds.
Typical Flatfish ad hominem attack, use of "Linux zealots", emphasis on
"free" as though Linux users never buy commercial software, which is a
lie.
> http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Nuendo-4-
> Advanced-Audio-and-Post-Production-System?sku=703099
>
> Nuendo is $1799.99 BTW, not $5000.00 like you Linux morons claim and
> it is worth every penny.
Also shifting the goal posts. Post was 2 years ago, Nuendo 3 was
$2,500, Cubase was $1,000, not to include supporting hardware. Another
Flatfish lie.
> Try running a commercial studio and telling your clients you use
> Linux. Those clients will now become ex-clients. However, you will
> get to hear their laughter at the other end of the phone call before
> they hang up on you.
This is another lie. Results are more important. So I show up at the
recording studio with a venerable all lacquer gone and dented King bari
sax instead of a brand new Selmer or Yamaha professional model sax. So
that makes me more professional? No, its the sound, style and
technique, baby.
And so with the audio equipment. Results are more important. And
what was very stupid about the original post 2 years ago, was the
emphasis that because the OP spent buku dineros on software would make
him a produce results, because he was too intolerant and ignorant to
properly set up the environment AND FOLLOW PRUDENT ADVICE in set up.
> Linux is great for some applications, servers for example, or
> embedded devices like cell phones as another example.
More FUD ala Flatfish style.
> That being said, Linux shouold stay as far away from professional
> audio as possible. Why? Because Linux hasn't even entered the 1990's
> let alone the 2000's.
No, because Flatfish is too incompetent to set up a studio to begin with.
<SNIP rest of the troll's idiocy>
--
HPT
Erin Mungan
ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
>
> Erin Mungan pulled this Usenet boner:
>
> > In article <hgjppr$jj0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
> >>
> >> Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:
> >>
> >> > Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
> >> >
> >> > <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
> >> >
> >> >> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
> >> >
> >> > Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
> >> > never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
> >>
> >> Idiot.
> >
> > If you Linux zealots are trying to compare your free software to
> > commercial programs like Nuendo, you are out of your collective minds.
> >
> > http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Nuendo-4-
> > Advanced-Audio-and-Post-Production-System?sku=703099
> >
> > Nuendo is $1799.99 BTW, not $5000.00 like you Linux morons claim and it
> > is worth every penny.
>
> Hey flatfish, wrong thread. Nothing about professional audio in Hadron and
> Peter's little set-to.
>
> I left the cross-post in so that rec.audio.pro will be forewarned should
> someone succumb to your silly "wasp and spider in a jar" troll.
Why not try actually reading the OP instead of sticking your head up
Roy's ass....
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/745be977e32dca
93?hl=en
We are now entering into the holiday of cheer. Linux has shown itself
to be a worthy operating system for many mission critical server and
stable desktop environment tasks. Music is an area Linux shines.
With humour regarding a COLA troll, who seemed to have lost its way. I
am glad I don't need $5,000 US to front a home music studio.
[quote]
Singer [Flatfish] wrote:
> philicorda wrote:
>> Singer [Flatfish] wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Linux is a good solution for some things, making music isn't one
>>> of them.
>> Have you tried any of the music software on Linux?
> Yes I have. It took me 3 days just to get Jack running without Xruns
> on a Delta 1010.
> Then there was Ardour crashing intermittantly on a save.
http://tracker.ardour.org/view.php?id=1865#bugnotes
[quote]
ID: 0001865 [ardour] bugs crash always 09-11-07 14:23
Reporter sebos69
Assigned To paul
Priority normal Resolution fixed
Status resolved
Product Version 2.0
Summary 0001865: ardour crashes when loading session
Description With ardour 2.05 SVN
when I try to re-open a saved session, ardour crashes without any
message (only "segmentation fault"
I join the saved session, this is the only information I have....
[/quote]
[quote]
Notes (0004354) sebos69 09-11-07 18:44
Nevermind, the crash disappeared after an upgrade... you can delete the
bug. Sorry for the noise
[/quote]
> Of course that was after realizing I had to run all these things as
> root to get priority.
http://ardour.org/system_requirements
[quote]
It is not possible for regular users on a normal Linux system to get
solid realtime performance, and so to avoid having to run all your audio
software as root (a very bad idea), there is a second kernel patch that
is very desirable. This is the "capabilities" patch. Its very small, but
it allows ordinary users to gain access to the powerful real-time
scheduling policies and memory locking of the Linux kernel.
[/quote]
> Then I was getting sample mismatch and "device already in use"
> messages which is where I discovered that there is a difference
> between "Default" and Hw0:0, despite Hw0:0 BEING default or something
> like that. Then of course I learned that arts is not really the same
> as artsd or whatever the server version is called. I don't remember,
> but I had to kill some sound process to get Jack to even run.
> Linux has way too many sound drivers, just like Linux has way to many
> versions.
Oh, really?
> All it does is confuse things for the user. I never did get it to run
> in realtime mode.
> And like I said the interface with Ardour is terrible. Rosegarden
> isn't too bad but it's no Cubase. And what about the list of plugins
> I listed, like Ivory or control surfaces and firewire interfaces?
Current version of Cubase full is $1,000 US.
> I gave up on Linux and audio after screwing with it for about 5 days.
> Why bother? Like the typical Linux application you'll spend all your
> time screwing around trying to make it work instead of actually using
> it.
> I installed Nuendo in 10 minutes and was up and running. Linux is at
> least 10 years behind the other platforms when it comes to music and
> audio and until the powers that control Linux's destiny decide to
> settle on one sound system, it will remain that way.
Nuendo 3 is $2,500 US.
I have a couple comments.
Pricey proprietary applications will always have nice features in them.
This is expected, the provider does this to meet needs and is warranted
to be compensated for them.
However, pricey products does not a professional make.
Linux available tools mentioned above along with other Linux
applications meet niches, have professional developers and sponsors.
Some of it is provided as a labour of love.
In some ways it may miss some "spit and polish". However, they can be
made to work, require a little more work, but IMHO, once one has gotten
them up and running, can accomplish significant work.
Example, to create professional results, a photographer on a budget can
make do with a Yashica FX3 manual SLR, selectively purchased cost
effective lenses, high powered budget minded flashes (Vivitar 285), home
made PVC flash stands, aluminised home builder's foam board for
reflectors, etc. (BTDT). He doesn't need 5K quid worth of equipment.
Another example, a musician does not need a professional model Yamaha
saxophone costing $5K US to produce professional results. Yes, that sax
will have slightly smoother action, perhaps a little better intonation
(in tune) through its range and a slightly better tone indistinquishable
to the average listener).
I've played Buffet pro clarinets from the '70s that did not play in
tune. I had to play them in tune. First clarinet that played in tune
was a Selmer Bundy beginner model plastic clarinet of the '80s.
Expensive equipment does not a professional make.
Not all of us have the financial resources to purchase high end hardware
and software applications. That will not stop us from producing high
quality results.
If you do not have the patience to select the appropriate operating
system or patches for real time work, spending a little time in setting
up the environment, making use of the different available tools to
accomplish same result and imagination, by all means, invest $5,000 US
into your home studio.
For the rest of us who work and do this as a hobby, or even professional
who have a niche to meet and budget to manage, we will make these cost
effective tools and applications work. We don't need an investment
portfolio to fund our projects.
[/quote]
27 Sep 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f8ff83eaf9d...
--
HPT
Hey, if your asshole poster HPT wants to compare Nuendo with his free
Linux alternatives, then it is open season.
He is scrambling already, twitching and frothing.
Yea it's real easy foisting the Linux DAW solutions on amateaurs who
don't know any better and are probably Linux zealots to begin with.
Let's see what happens when you try and foist the same Linux crap on
professionals.
Are you up to it?
I am....
Let's see what professionals think of Linux vs Nuendo......
That's why rec.audio.pro was left in....
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> In article <hgjppr$jj0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
>>
>> Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>> > Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
>> >
>> > <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
>> >
>> >> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
>> >
>> > Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
>> > never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> If you Linux zealots are trying to compare your free software to
> commercial programs like Nuendo, you are out of your collective minds.
>
> http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Nuendo-4-
> Advanced-Audio-and-Post-Production-System?sku=703099
>
> Nuendo is $1799.99 BTW, not $5000.00 like you Linux morons claim and it
> is worth every penny.
...that still puts it into the 0.00001% userbase and "so what" category.
[deletia]
--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.
William Poaster
Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> Erin Mungan pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> In article <hgjppr$jj0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
>>>
>>> Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>> > Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:
>>> >
>>> > <noisome "Hadronic" nonsense snipped>
>>> >
>>> >> I rather program all new stuff in Qt C++ directly
>>> >
>>> > Sure you do. With or without null pointer dereferencing? You are not and
>>> > never were a programmer. The cat is out of the bag ...
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>
>> If you Linux zealots are trying to compare your free software to
>> commercial programs like Nuendo, you are out of your collective minds.
>>
>> http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Steinberg-Nuendo-4-
>> Advanced-Audio-and-Post-Production-System?sku=703099
>>
>> Nuendo is $1799.99 BTW, not $5000.00 like you Linux morons claim and it
>> is worth every penny.
>
> Hey flatfish, wrong thread. Nothing about professional audio in Hadron and
> Peter's little set-to.
>
> I left the cross-post in so that rec.audio.pro will be forewarned should
> someone succumb to your silly "wasp and spider in a jar" troll.
<x-post snipped>
They already know about the flatfish troll. As someone has commented "Oh, god,
not *that* idiot again."
--
Wolfgang's Third Law: It can't work.
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <hgk0tp$gd2$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>
>> Hey flatfish, wrong thread. Nothing about professional audio in Hadron and
>> Peter's little set-to.
>>
>> I left the cross-post in so that rec.audio.pro will be forewarned should
>> someone succumb to your silly "wasp and spider in a jar" troll.
>
> Why not try actually reading the OP instead of sticking your head up
> Roy's ass....
Now you're pulling "Roy" into this thread. Silly.
I didn't get into the thread until Peter responded to "Hadron".
You responded to the wrong guy, flatso.
--
Your love life will be happy and harmonious.
Erin Mungan
ahls...@launchmodem.com says...
Read the title of the thread you moron.
And please take your head out of Roy's ass.
You look ridiculous.
High Plains Thumper
> Chris Ahlstrom was heard:
>
>> I left the cross-post in so that rec.audio.pro will be forewarned
>> should someone succumb to your silly "wasp and spider in a jar"
>> troll.
>
> <x-post snipped>
>
> They already know about the flatfish troll. As someone has commented
> "Oh, god, not *that* idiot again."
Yup. A rather scathing indictment.
--
HPT
chrisv
>Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Peter K�hlmann writes:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate for
>>>>> many tasks, particularly scientific.
>>>
>>> LOL. Like what? If it was "adequate" for many tasks then why
>>> "particularly" scientific?
>>
>>> I smell some HPT nonsense ....
>>
>> You should try washing sometimes. It might help keeping that strench
>> at bay
>
>Like you say Peter, I smell an unwashed Wintroll. :-)
You sure someone didn't just "cut the cheese"? 8)
--
"Who the fuck wants to install OO on a new system for home?" - "True
Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> Peter K�hlmann writes:
>>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BASIC had its charm. It was easy to use and quite adequate
>>>>>> for many tasks, particularly scientific.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. Like what? If it was "adequate" for many tasks then why
>>>> "particularly" scientific? I smell some HPT nonsense ....
>>>
>>> You should try washing sometimes. It might help keeping that
>>> strench at bay
>>
>> Like you say Peter, I smell an unwashed Wintroll. :-)
>
> You sure someone didn't just "cut the cheese"? 8)
Hadron is not family. :-)
--
HPT
Keoki
guess the post refers to a situation similar to what I ran into, a Mac/
PC veteran musician checking Linux out for music apps unique to it:
Beast, Ounk, Rosegarden, Blue, PD, AlgoScore, Strasheela, Waon,
GranuLab...
There is gold in them Linux hills, but getting to will be still a
challenge. I chronicled my attempts on LinuxForums.org; ("Adventures
in Linux MIDI" thread) - 18 of 20 distros I tried had issues with JACK
from the outset. In private emails I was told I should pursue the
issue deeper, get under the apps' hood to get things working. How a
musician would do that, I'm not sure. So I floated a suggestion to
those experts, let's take on one of the nice music distros then (e.g.
Open Artist) fix the dozen or so found issues together and do a
"making Open Artist work on your computer" sort of thread / manual
about the process to document it for mere mortals.
Something in my suggestion triggered such a major reaction, there were
no further emails... :-)
> In article <hgk0tp$gd...@news.eternal-september.org>,
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Without going into qualifying the words "crap" and "professionals", I
> guess the post refers to a situation similar to what I ran into, a Mac/
> PC veteran musician checking Linux out for music apps unique to it:
> Beast, Ounk, Rosegarden, Blue, PD, AlgoScore, Strasheela, Waon,
> GranuLab...
>
> There is gold in them Linux hills, but getting to will be still a
> challenge. I chronicled my attempts on LinuxForums.org; ("Adventures
> in Linux MIDI" thread) - 18 of 20 distros I tried had issues with JACK
> from the outset. In private emails I was told I should pursue the
> issue deeper, get under the apps' hood to get things working. How a
> musician would do that, I'm not sure. So I floated a suggestion to
...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
Musicians aren't stupid. They certainly aren't stupid when it comes
to their own profession and the related tools.
[deletia]
Some wannabe Garage Band user may have no chops but that's a different
kettle of fish.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
Keoki
> ...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
> musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
> with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
I'm not aware of any seminal synth album (Wendy Carlos? Vangelis? Jean
Michel Jarre?) created by hacking synths to death. Nor did Chopin,
Gershwin or Rachmaninoff hack the piano to death. (Although the latter
came pretty close to it by his playing :-) Yes, you can find a group
of people hacking anything to death, from toasters to musical
instruments. For some reason, history shows us no correlation to the
group who accomplished musical works of lasting merit.
"Musicians are not stupid?" Some are, some aren't. Just like people
who love to hack things or major composers, or nuns, soup lovers. It's
an unrelated factor.
JEDIDIAH
>
>> ...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
>> musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
>> with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
>
> I'm not aware of any seminal synth album (Wendy Carlos? Vangelis? Jean
> Michel Jarre?) created by hacking synths to death. Nor did Chopin,
Your pet composers never experimented with tech therefore none of them did?
You're not a musician by any chance.
Artists may be "smart" when it comes to their own speciality but they can
be dumb as bricks when it comes to anything else.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
philicorda
> Without going into qualifying the words "crap" and "professionals", I
> guess the post refers to a situation similar to what I ran into, a Mac/
> PC veteran musician checking Linux out for music apps unique to it:
> Beast, Ounk, Rosegarden, Blue, PD, AlgoScore, Strasheela, Waon,
> GranuLab...
>
> There is gold in them Linux hills, but getting to will be still a
> challenge. I chronicled my attempts on LinuxForums.org; ("Adventures in
> Linux MIDI" thread) - 18 of 20 distros I tried had issues with JACK from
> the outset. In private emails I was told I should pursue the issue
> deeper, get under the apps' hood to get things working. How a musician
> would do that, I'm not sure.
Hey, I resemble that remark. I don't know who else you contacted after
emailing me, but that is not representative of what I wrote, which was:
"I can tell you what my troubleshooting advice will be already though:
1) Make sure the downloaded 'Open Artist' ISO has the correct MD5 sum,
and verify the burnt DVD.
2) Make sure the buffer size, sample rate and period size is correct in
QJackcontrol, and that jack is running in real time mode.
3) If necessary, select the real time kernel on bootup.
I would not want to go much deeper than that because:
1 You should not have to. If whoever wrote the distro messed something
up enough to require extensive de-bugging just to get started, and the
problem is not something particular to your computer hardware, then it
might be best to move on."
Essentially I told you check the install DVD is good and check the
soundcard settings.
That is not too dissimilar to the advice I'd give to someone on a fresh
install Windows/OSX. Ie, if you get soundcard problems, check the buffer
size. Particularly with a built in motherboard soundchip like the ALC883.
The error message screenshots in your review also indicated a problem
with the soundcard buffer size, so it seems a logical thing to do.
I'd like to know how many of those 18 broken distros would work after
doing that. (I'm not being sarcastic, I would actually like to know.)
Daniel Gawade
Seriously I see absolutely no reason (pun intended) to use Linux for any
serious audio production work and I can't figure out why these threads keep
going on and on. The bottom line always ends up being musicians and audio
engineer types, the kind that make music, not 200 speaker simulation
devices, have troubles with Linux and audio production.
Sure you can spend all your waking hours trying to get ardour, jack, jill
and the rest of the gang that's lost on the hill, working or like I said you
can download Reaper and be up and running in less than a minute. If you use
it for small time work, pay the $60.00 and be done with it. How much is all
that time you wasted trying to make Linux work worth?
Linux is great for some things, Android phones for one, but music production
isn't one of them and while exceptions exist they are very rare. Some people
are still using BEOS, OS/2 and other dinosaur systems and always hoping that
someday their chosen messiah will rise from the bit bucket. Whatever floats
your canoe.
"philicorda" <phili...@NOOSSPPPAAMMM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hD91n.13196$OJ6....@newsfe26.ams2...
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Jan 6, 11:17?am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> ...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
>> musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
>> with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
>
> I'm not aware of any seminal synth album (Wendy Carlos? Vangelis? Jean
> Michel Jarre?) created by hacking synths to death.
Indeed, you are not aware.
I suppose you also think Keith Emerson had somebody set up all those
oscillators and ring modulators for him, too.
And Larry Fast never hacked PAIA gear to create new sounds.
Or Walter Sear, or Zajda.
Morton Subotnik never spent hours coaxing sounds out of a Bukla synthesizer,
or cutting and splicing endless sections of tape to make "The Wild Bull".
> "Musicians are not stupid?" Some are, some aren't. Just like people
> who love to hack things or major composers, or nuns, soup lovers. It's
> an unrelated factor.
I liked DJ Keoki's (sp?) mix he did with the Speed Racer Porn mix.
Yeah, he never hacked anything, either.
Anyway, you're nuts. The musician's on the leading edges have almost always
had a superb technical mastery of the *guts* of their instruments and a
great interest in musical technology.
--
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would
be a merrier world.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
Chris Ahlstrom
> Or he could download Reaper, install it and be running in 60 seconds.
> Seriously I see absolutely no reason (pun intended) to use Linux for any
> serious audio production work and I can't figure out why these threads keep
> going on and on. The bottom line always ends up being musicians and audio
> engineer types, the kind that make music, not 200 speaker simulation
> devices, have troubles with Linux and audio production.
> Sure you can spend all your waking hours trying to get ardour, jack, jill
> and the rest of the gang that's lost on the hill, working or like I said you
> can download Reaper and be up and running in less than a minute. If you use
> it for small time work, pay the $60.00 and be done with it. How much is all
> that time you wasted trying to make Linux work worth?
> Linux is great for some things, Android phones for one, but music production
> isn't one of them and while exceptions exist they are very rare. Some people
> are still using BEOS, OS/2 and other dinosaur systems and always hoping that
> someday their chosen messiah will rise from the bit bucket. Whatever floats
> your canoe.
Just shaddap and play yer guitar.
I no longer deal with computer music much these days, but the software and
audio systems on Linux, however they compare to such systems on Windows
these days, are orders of magnitude faster and more powerul than the stuff
we used to use on Ataris and PCs. And, just like any platform, sometimes
you have issues to fix.
If someone wants to use Linux to do serious audio work, who are you to tell
them there's no reason to?
--
They have been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps.
-- William Shakespeare, "Love's Labour's Lost"
Daniel Gawade
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:hi3b6u$cep$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't play the guitar.
> I no longer deal with computer music much these days
Then you really have nothing worthwhile to say about the subject do you?
> If someone wants to use Linux to do serious audio work, who are you to
> tell
> them there's no reason to?
I'm not, which is why I ended with "whatever floats your canoe".
Learn to read the message in it's entirety before opening your trap and
making an ass of yourself.
Daniel Gawade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggFzkyd288
I would hate to have been his keyboard technician :)
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:hi3ap6$cep$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Chris Ahlstrom
Actually, I think I'm the reasonable one here.
--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to biology?
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
>musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
>with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
Maybe a few did. I remember the quote from an engineer at Sequential
Circuits (who made the Prophet 5) that most units returned for service
still had the factory patches installed.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Keith Emerson you say? You will love this classic clip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggFzkyd288
>
> I would hate to have been his keyboard technician :)
He sure made that keyboard scream!
Regrettably, he was in Chicago a few decades ago and I never managed to get
to that concert.
--
You may worry about your hair-do today, but tomorrow much peanut butter will
be sold.
Keoki
> The musician's on the leading edges have almost always
> had a superb technical mastery of the *guts* of their instruments and a
> great interest in musical technology.
Mastery of the instrument's *playing*, absolutely, it's a hallmark of
most great composers.
Hacking the instruments internals to death, as the original poster
described it - there's no correlation between people doing that and
achieving any famous musical work. Someone might even argue that
hacking an instrument's (or OS's) internals equals time not spent on
mastery of the instrument's actual playing, and is thus a negative
factor. I don't have a position on that. But the gist of our
difference falls as well to what we define as "famous". My definition
of "famous" begins at guys like Gershwin or Vangelis. You highlighted
Morton Subotnick. I did a quick listen on Amazon; with all due respect
I don't think Gershwin and Subotnick (or your other nominees) are
quite in the same category. I might be wrong. Let's wait and see which
one the public remembers in 50 years.
Daniel Gawade
> Actually, I think I'm the reasonable one here.
Not really, but maybe we both got off on the wrong foot. My point is that
Linux just is not ready to start replacing programs like Protools, Nuendo,
Samplitude, Sonar and so forth in professional studios and the main reason
is because the people who have to use these programs have a difficult time
making them work.
You would be hard pressed to find a more attentive audience than musicians
especially when the "Free word" is mentioned. We all want free or low cost
solutions that we can create with and musicians tend to be at the low end of
the monetary food chain, in general.
The problem is, Linux just can't compare to even low cost alternatives for
the Mac or Windows. Yes, you will find the developers of these programs
making all kinds of comments about the power of these Linux programs, and
they are correct but it all becomes a moot point when even the basic pro
level hardware and plugins are not supported.
You are not going to find a musician who is running Waves plugins playing
around with the LADSPA plugins because he decides to use Linux.
What it boils down to is really what is the advantage of Linux?
What real world advantage does Linux and Linux audio programs give me over
Mac or Windows?
Forget about having the source code. I wouldn't know what to do with it.
Free?
Ok, that's one that wets my whistle, but exactly what am I getting for free?
I can get Audacity for Windows for free as well.
I can get MuLab or Reaper or any number of other programs for free or very
low cost.
Assuming I run a Linux audio targeted distribution like 64studio, that means
I have to run 2 separate systems. One for my general work and one for audio.
How is that superior?
See where I am going with this?
As a musician I am pounding on the Linux door, but when the wench answers
and hands me a fist full of Linux DVD's to try, I just don't have the time
to re-invent the wheel just to have it not be round anymore.
owl
JEDIDIAH
Some did, some didn't, still others took sledge hammers to them.
--
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \
-- Bill Gates
Daniel Gawade
news:sofada...@rooftop.invalid...
> Music died about 10-15 years ago anyway.
A lot of people and musicians will agree with you. I certainly do but with a
qualification.
The good music is not, for the most part in the mainstream media.
It's in your local clubs, college radio stations etc.
You would be amazed how much raw talent is out there and by the same token
you will probably never hear it because these people may not be marketable.
from the perspective of the suits.
Think Susan Boyle.
I recently drove from CT to FL in a Hertz rental and after about 5 hours of
trying to listen to mainstream radio I called them up and asked them to turn
on the Sirrius option. I found out it was on all the time, silly me, but the
point is music really does suck these days.
An affordable project studio has been a 2 edged sword.
On one hand it has allowed people to create, record, master and produce
their own works which would have required a truckload of gear back in the
70's.
On the other hand, it has allowed people to create, record, master and
produce their own works which would have required a truckload of gear back
in the 70's.
Whenever this discussion comes up I ask people where the 5-10 hit albums
are?
Carol King Tapestry.
Boston.
Fleetwood Mac Rumours (yea I remember Tusk too ).
AeroSmith Toys in the Attic
ELP
Kenny Loggins
Chicago
The 5th Dimension
The Tops
Jackson 5
EWF
Where are groups of this caliber?
People who could actually sing and/or play real time?
Sit Carol King down at a piano in your living room and guess what?
You have her albums.
Oh, yea she actually did that one already.
What we have today is a huge collection of no talent cut and paste musicians
who couldn't hold a tune in a basket if Auto Tune were not connected to it
via an umbilical cord.
Sad but true and I don't blame kids when they pirate music.
Who the hell wants to spend $18.99 on a CD that has one, maybe 2 "hits" on
it.
A waste of money.
AZ Nomad
vanished from the airwaves.
Jazz is doing ok as long as you ignore smooth jazz crap.
Daniel Gawade
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
> It depends on the genre. Rock certainly died 1/1/1980 as the instrumental
> solo
> vanished from the airwaves.
>
> Jazz is doing ok as long as you ignore smooth jazz crap.
Rock, pop, Top 40 and AOR died.
Some of the smooth jazz stuff isn't too bad, David Benoit for example.
Most is like elevator music though.
P.S. AOR = Album Oriented Rock for you young stuff....
owl
If you're talking about totally instrumental songs, yeah. But the
guitar solo actually reached its peak in the 80's. The music in general
was crap, but the guitar work, taken in isolation, was phenomenal.
I prefer late 60's early 70's rock, but I have to acknowledge the
guitar talent from the 80's. That's the heyday of neo-classical metal,
which is where you find some of the greatest guitarists of all time.
I disagree with 1/1/1980 for the death of rock in general.
For example, 13 years later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw3FTiWRXF8
> Jazz is doing ok as long as you ignore smooth jazz crap.
Jazz never did anything for me.
Richard Crowley
> Jazz never did anything for me.
Rock never did anything for me.
Kadaitcha Man
> Rock never did anything for me.
You've repeated that ad infinitum since a big one landed on your head.
--
Test signature
owl
> "owl" <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sofada...@rooftop.invalid...
>> Music died about 10-15 years ago anyway.
>
> A lot of people and musicians will agree with you. I certainly do but with a
> qualification.
> The good music is not, for the most part in the mainstream media.
> It's in your local clubs, college radio stations etc.
>
> You would be amazed how much raw talent is out there and by the same token
> you will probably never hear it because these people may not be marketable.
> from the perspective of the suits.
>
> Think Susan Boyle.
>
Interesting character. Good voice. But I prefer total-package types
who actually create write their own music/lyrics. Susan Boyle is just
a singer of other people's songs, as far as I know.
> I recently drove from CT to FL in a Hertz rental and after about 5 hours of
> trying to listen to mainstream radio I called them up and asked them to turn
> on the Sirrius option. I found out it was on all the time, silly me, but the
> point is music really does suck these days.
>
I had a trial of XM on a new car I bought a couple years ago. I let it
expire. To much top-40 rotation in those genre stations. I usually
ended up listening to that fast tempo noisy modern stuff, I forget
what it's called, but I think it's for raves or whatever they call
parties these days. But I got bored with that because all the songs
sound the same.
> An affordable project studio has been a 2 edged sword.
> On one hand it has allowed people to create, record, master and produce
> their own works which would have required a truckload of gear back in the
> 70's.
>
> On the other hand, it has allowed people to create, record, master and
> produce their own works which would have required a truckload of gear back
> in the 70's.
>
> Whenever this discussion comes up I ask people where the 5-10 hit albums
> are?
> Carol King Tapestry.
> Boston.
> Fleetwood Mac Rumours (yea I remember Tusk too ).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Greatest band of all time IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJyzijG0I0k
> AeroSmith Toys in the Attic
> ELP
> Kenny Loggins
> Chicago
> The 5th Dimension
> The Tops
> Jackson 5
> EWF
>
> Where are groups of this caliber?
> People who could actually sing and/or play real time?
>
That's what I want to know. Where is all the talent today?
I'm too old to go out clubbing to find unpromoted bands.
Where are the industry talent scouts? Are there any left?
Somebody needs to summon Colonel Parker's ghost and get something
going, because NOTHING IS HAPPENING. MUSIC SUCKS.
> Sit Carol King down at a piano in your living room and guess what?
> You have her albums.
> Oh, yea she actually did that one already.
>
> What we have today is a huge collection of no talent cut and paste musicians
> who couldn't hold a tune in a basket if Auto Tune were not connected to it
> via an umbilical cord.
>
> Sad but true and I don't blame kids when they pirate music.
> Who the hell wants to spend $18.99 on a CD that has one, maybe 2 "hits" on
> it.
> A waste of money.
>
I really don't think they even know what good music is. I jammed with
this twenty-something guitarist recently, and I showed him some truly
great examples of older guitar-oriented music, and he just had this blank
look on his face the whole time. I mean, how can *any* guitarist listen
to Buck Dharma solo and not be totally stoked?
GreyCloud
Heck, I still can't get any DVD player to work on Linux even using Suns
VirtualBox software. Tho I like the philosophy of Linux and how it
works, there are areas that are badly disjointed like sound, video, and
just plain hard to get libraries... which leads you on a wild goose
chase. Which means you will probably give up and go elsewhere.
The Linux community needs to solve these problems about playback of
commercial DVDs, the coherent synched libraries, getting a one-click
download and install solution, etc. The docs also need to be worked
over very carefully for accuracy and clarity and put into a central
indexed document.
The complexity is huge, and one doesn't need to pull his hair out
looking all over the world for a scrap of information relating to a problem.
Right now, no operating system is close to being this way.
Keep in mind that OS X is a certified UNIX os that is pretty much BSD
UNIX based. Yet it is very friendly to the user in regards to
installing new software. I can go to the depths of technical
complexity, or just use it as is with whatever software I want that I
can find on the internet. The same can be pretty much said for windows
as well. I'll probably catch a lot of catcalls over this, as I was a
Linux advocate in the past, but the main problem of 'Average User' of
acquiring software and installing still exists. I've used Solaris and
many versions of linux, but only windows and OS X makes it easy. The
downside of windows is obvious... viruses and nasty malware. And some
of that malware can make a person go to drink. The only os now
available that hasn't given me any serious troubles is OS X. I've yet
to catch a virus, let alone any malware in over 6 years now.
Kadaitcha Man
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Daniel Gawade <0hdann...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Think Susan Boyle.
> Interesting character. Good voice. But I prefer total-package types
> who actually create write their own music/lyrics. Susan Boyle is just a
> singer of other people's songs, as far as I know.
Said the self-appointed music critic who probably sings like a cat's
choir, dogs only.
--
Test signature
GreyCloud
That seems to place you possibly in the 60s age bracket. Yes?
> Where are groups of this caliber?
Hehehe... none that I know of. Nothing earth shattering these days.
> People who could actually sing and/or play real time?
>
Far and few between.
> Sit Carol King down at a piano in your living room and guess what?
> You have her albums.
> Oh, yea she actually did that one already.
My wife loves her music because she can sing in her range as well.
>
> What we have today is a huge collection of no talent cut and paste
> musicians who couldn't hold a tune in a basket if Auto Tune were not
> connected to it via an umbilical cord.
>
Actually, the only ones left are the new Country Western musicians.
They seem to be making a big success lately, and I'm not a fan of that
stuff, but lately is sounding pretty good as things are changing.
> Sad but true and I don't blame kids when they pirate music.
> Who the hell wants to spend $18.99 on a CD that has one, maybe 2 "hits"
> on it.
> A waste of money.
>
I know. :-(
If the music is tops, I pay for it.
GreyCloud
Not really. The top heavy metal guitarist plays a lot of solo parts.
Of course I may very well be mistaken on what you mean by instrumental
solos.
Kadaitcha Man
> I like the philosophy of Linux and how it
> works, there are areas that are badly disjointed like sound, video, and
> just plain hard to get libraries... which leads you on a wild goose
> chase. Which means you will probably give up and go elsewhere. The
> Linux community needs to solve these problems
Nah. The smart ones set themselves up as founders of open source
organisations, con tens of thousands of developers to contribute their
time and skills for no pay and little to almost no recognition, then they
sell up to commercial interests for hundreds of millions of dollars,
billions in some recent cases.
What's left apart from some cash-flushed former open source organisation
directors and tens of thousands of really pissed-off developers?
That, as I also stated more than a decade ago, is the problem that the
Linux community needs to solve. Even fucking Blind Freddy could have seen
it coming. Only a fucking nuttard would donate their time and convince
themselves that it was "free".
Of course, the real irony is this:
The tens of thousands of really pissed-off developers who donated their
time "free", have realised that their time was not, by any stretch of the
imagination, actually free; indeed it amounted to hundreds of millions of
dollars, and sometimes billions of dollars of value. For if it were free,
the now cash-flushed former open source organisation directors would have
pointed to the GPL and said, "Hey, we don't want your stinking money.
It's all free anyway! See...?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You'd have to be a complete and utter fucking
nutter to get sucked in by the "free, as in speech" bullshit line.
It ain't free. It can't be free; because the commercial world has put a
dollar value on it.
So much for open source, hey.
--
Test signature
owl
... except honor you with a song in your name, including a great solo by
one of the gods of guitar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdstwaxhcU
When Jazz ever starts to get the whole emotion thing, let me know.
Classical gets it. Rock gets it. Even Pop gets it. What happened
with Jazz?
Now's the time for Jazz if ever there will be a time. All other genres
are producing crap at the moment. Jazz can run unopposed. But I predict
fail. Even if Jazz is all there is on the radio, people will cover
their ears and scream for somebody to turn it off.
owl
Thanks a lot for bringing *cats* into this. NOT.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>If you're talking about totally instrumental songs, yeah. But the
>guitar solo actually reached its peak in the 80's. The music in general
>was crap, but the guitar work, taken in isolation, was phenomenal.
>I prefer late 60's early 70's rock, but I have to acknowledge the
>guitar talent from the 80's. That's the heyday of neo-classical metal,
>which is where you find some of the greatest guitarists of all time.
This says otherwise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cLWO-8RBes
d
owl
My god, that nearly put me to sleep. I saw Beck in '76, in a multi-band
concert, with Aerosmith. LOL. Needless to say, he was upstaged.
Here's a later-than-eighties example of skillful neo-classical metal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjfUMLeKd5E
Jeff Beck does not have the skillz to play that. That's why he
does not attempt it.
But this is more my taste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFyfKcanJ6k
Jeff Beck does not have the *feeling* to play that. (Hell, nobody else
does).
Hell, I'd even rather listen to this accordian monster than jazz guitar
(or jazz anything):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYPzBQsg17w
Jeff Beck is overrated, like Jimmy Page (but not nearly as overrated
as Eric Crapton).
Definition of Jazz: If you hit the wrong note, just make like Pee Wee
and pretend you meant to do that.
Alexis Machine
> Rock never did anything for me.
Then you have problems.
Alexis Machine
> All other genres are producing crap at the moment.
Uh - not so.
There is a lot of good rock music being created today.
owl
OK. I have to admit I've got a concert DVD by these guys, and they rock
their asses off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTiGlNDnOtE
Do you have any suggestions for anything else in that groove?
(I'm an old geezer and don't get out much) :)
TomB
On 2010-01-07, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> Keoki pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Jan 6, 11:17?am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>> ...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
>>> musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
>>> with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
>>
>> Michel Jarre?) created by hacking synths to death.
>
> Indeed, you are not aware.
>
> I suppose you also think Keith Emerson had somebody set up all those
> oscillators and ring modulators for him, too.
ELP, what a great band. Rick Wakeman is another great keyboard player,
and also known as a 'synth hacker'.
There has always been a lot of 'geekyness' in music and arts. I
once saw a documentary about the golden mean, and study proved that
some classical pieces were entirely composed against the math of the
golden mean.
--
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns
on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.
~ Groucho Marx
Laurence Payne
<0hdann...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You would be amazed how much raw talent is out there and by the same token
>you will probably never hear it because these people may not be marketable.
>from the perspective of the suits.
>
>Think Susan Boyle.
OK, I'm thinking. A pleasant voice, but equalled 10 times over in any
West End theatre chorus. A person who seemed quite incapable of
starting any sort of career by herself. But, within the peculiar
context of that TV talent show, she was marketable.
Mad as a Box of Frogs
Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>Some foo
/linux/h:j
/kadaitcha/f:j
--
Master of Puppets We are all Rich Rosen
DENSA Life Achievement � Am I the only one with half a brain?
High Plains Thumper
> On 2010-01-06, Keoki<ofc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Without going into qualifying the words "crap" and "professionals",
>> I guess the post refers to a situation similar to what I ran into,
>> a Mac/ PC veteran musician checking Linux out for music apps unique
>> to it: Beast, Ounk, Rosegarden, Blue, PD, AlgoScore, Strasheela,
>> Waon, GranuLab...
>>
>> There is gold in them Linux hills, but getting to will be still a
>> challenge. I chronicled my attempts on LinuxForums.org;
>> ("Adventures in Linux MIDI" thread) - 18 of 20 distros I tried had
>> issues with JACK from the outset. In private emails I was told I
>> should pursue the issue deeper, get under the apps' hood to get
>> things working. How a musician would do that, I'm not sure. So I
>> floated a suggestion to
>
> ...um. You are aware right that when syths were first introduced to
> musicians that they pretty much hacked them to death and did things
> with them that the original engineers didn't expect.
>
> to their own profession and the related tools.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Some wannabe Garage Band user may have no chops but that's a
> different kettle of fish.
Kettle of fish? Post certainly rings of a Flatfish post,
generalisations of Linux performance ("18 of 20 distros I tried had
issues with JACK from the outset", "get under the apps' hod to get
things working", "How a musician would do that"), posting from Google
Groups through a Go-Daddy server, etc.
--
HPT
Rick
You can't get a DVD to play? On what distro?
> Tho I like the philosophy of Linux and how it
> works, there are areas that are badly disjointed like sound, video, and
> just plain hard to get libraries... which leads you on a wild goose
> chase. Which means you will probably give up and go elsewhere. The
> Linux community needs to solve these problems about playback of
> commercial DVDs,
All my DVDs will pay in PCLInuxOS, Ubuntu and OpenSuse.
> the coherent synched libraries, getting a one-click
> download and install solution, etc.
What is hard about installing from a repository? Or about downloading an
rpm or deb, and then double-clicking it?
> The docs also need to be worked
> over very carefully for accuracy and clarity and put into a central
> indexed document.
Are you saying the all the docs for OS X and every OS X app are all
indexed in one single document?
> The complexity is huge, and one doesn't need to pull his hair out
> looking all over the world for a scrap of information relating to a
> problem. Right now, no operating system is close to being this way.
.. ahhh .. I guess not...
>
> Keep in mind that OS X is a certified UNIX os that is pretty much BSD
> UNIX based. Yet it is very friendly to the user in regards to
> installing new software.
Keep in mind that installing new software is very friendly on most Linux
based distros.
> I can go to the depths of technical
> complexity, or just use it as is with whatever software I want that I
> can find on the internet. The same can be pretty much said for windows
> as well. I'll probably catch a lot of catcalls over this, as I was a
> Linux advocate in the past, but the main problem of 'Average User' of
> acquiring software and installing still exists. I've used Solaris and
> many versions of linux, but only windows and OS X makes it easy. The
Searching for OS X and Windows software is easier than searching for
Linux based software? Uh huh. Sure.
> downside of windows is obvious... viruses and nasty malware. And some
> of that malware can make a person go to drink. The only os now
> available that hasn't given me any serious troubles is OS X. I've yet
> to catch a virus, let alone any malware in over 6 years now.
Good for you. I've yet to catch a virus, let alone any malware for
around 10 years now... using Linux based systems.
--
Rick
Chris Ahlstrom
>> Actually, I think I'm the reasonable one here.
>
> Not really, ...
Yes, I am *perfectly* reasonable! :-)
> but maybe we both got off on the wrong foot.
Well, that's why someone cross-posted.
> My point is that
> Linux just is not ready to start replacing programs like Protools, Nuendo,
> Samplitude, Sonar and so forth in professional studios and the main reason
> is because the people who have to use these programs have a difficult time
> making them work.
I'll take your word for it. I've tinkered with Rosegarden and Ardour, and
have had little trouble with ALSA and Jack.
Another reason would be that those products are produced by professional
companies, and so they get set up to work for you, and marketed. I
personally haven't seen a lot of marketed Linux audio stuff, though it is
out there.
> You would be hard pressed to find a more attentive audience than musicians
> especially when the "Free word" is mentioned. We all want free or low cost
> solutions that we can create with and musicians tend to be at the low end of
> the monetary food chain, in general.
>
> The problem is, Linux just can't compare to even low cost alternatives for
> the Mac or Windows. Yes, you will find the developers of these programs
> making all kinds of comments about the power of these Linux programs, and
> they are correct but it all becomes a moot point when even the basic pro
> level hardware and plugins are not supported.
> You are not going to find a musician who is running Waves plugins playing
> around with the LADSPA plugins because he decides to use Linux.
So you are saying the vendors generally don't support Linux in this area.
> What it boils down to is really what is the advantage of Linux?
Cost.
> What real world advantage does Linux and Linux audio programs give me over
> Mac or Windows?
That, I don't know. As I noted, I barely tinker with music anymore (my old
MT-32 sits idle, for example, and I have not upgraded Cakewalk in ages).
However, if I got back into it, I am obviously not going to pay for or
pirate packaged solutions. So, for me, it would be Linux (which is by far
my preferred platform anyway).
> Forget about having the source code. I wouldn't know what to do with it.
No, but many others can, for you.
> Free?
> Ok, that's one that wets my whistle, but exactly what am I getting for free?
> I can get Audacity for Windows for free as well.
> I can get MuLab or Reaper or any number of other programs for free or very
> low cost.
Apparently you can run Reaper in wine with great performance.
> Assuming I run a Linux audio targeted distribution like 64studio, that means
> I have to run 2 separate systems. One for my general work and one for audio.
> How is that superior?
Hmmmm, I know of musicians who have more than one guitar. How is *that*
superior?
> See where I am going with this?
Yes. You're saying there are more prepackaged "solutions" available on
Windows. That is all.
> As a musician I am pounding on the Linux door, but when the wench answers
> and hands me a fist full of Linux DVD's to try, I just don't have the time
> to re-invent the wheel just to have it not be round anymore.
Here's one guy who feels differently:
http://linux-sound.org/ardour-music.html
Love the suit!
Here's another:
Anyway, I always get a little suspicious when claims are made in a field
where you can have everything from a know-nothing diva, to a few dudes with
some guitars and amps, to a group that is essentially a sound lab, all doing
"professional" music.
--
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Daniel Gawade wrote:
>>
>> Not really, but maybe we both got off on the wrong foot.
>
> Heck, I still can't get any DVD player to work on Linux even using Suns
> VirtualBox software. Tho I like the philosophy of Linux and how it
> works, there are areas that are badly disjointed like sound, video, and
> just plain hard to get libraries... which leads you on a wild goose
> chase. Which means you will probably give up and go elsewhere.
> The Linux community needs to solve these problems about playback of
> commercial DVDs, the coherent synched libraries, getting a one-click
> download and install solution, etc.
Grey, you're seriously wrong in the above.
> The docs also need to be worked
> over very carefully for accuracy and clarity and put into a central
> indexed document.
> The complexity is huge, and one doesn't need to pull his hair out
> looking all over the world for a scrap of information relating to a problem.
> Right now, no operating system is close to being this way.
>
> Keep in mind that OS X is a certified UNIX os that is pretty much BSD
> UNIX based. Yet it is very friendly to the user in regards to
> installing new software. I can go to the depths of technical
> complexity, or just use it as is with whatever software I want that I
> can find on the internet. The same can be pretty much said for windows
> as well. I'll probably catch a lot of catcalls over this, as I was a
> Linux advocate in the past, but the main problem of 'Average User' of
> acquiring software and installing still exists. I've used Solaris and
> many versions of linux, but only windows and OS X makes it easy. The
> downside of windows is obvious... viruses and nasty malware. And some
> of that malware can make a person go to drink. The only os now
> available that hasn't given me any serious troubles is OS X. I've yet
> to catch a virus, let alone any malware in over 6 years now.
YMMV!
--
A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!
-- Wm. Shakespeare, "Richard III"
Chris Ahlstrom
> "owl" <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sofada...@rooftop.invalid...
>> Music died about 10-15 years ago anyway.
>
> A lot of people and musicians will agree with you. I certainly do but with a
> qualification.
> The good music is not, for the most part in the mainstream media.
> It's in your local clubs, college radio stations etc.
>
> You would be amazed how much raw talent is out there and by the same token
> you will probably never hear it because these people may not be marketable.
> from the perspective of the suits.
>
> Think Susan Boyle.
Think streaming radio.
> Sad but true and I don't blame kids when they pirate music.
> Who the hell wants to spend $18.99 on a CD that has one, maybe 2 "hits" on
> it.
> A waste of money.
I actually bought a CD, 11:11 by Rodrigo y Gabriela. The old dude at the
Barnes & Noble had it playing.
Use the command-line app jack to rip, a script to master, and a script to
burn, and now it's in the car.
--
You display the wonderful traits of charm and courtesy.
Alexis Machine
> Do you have any suggestions for anything else in that groove?
> (I'm an old geezer and don't get out much) :)
>
Check out Drist, Drenalin and Craving Lucy. They're not big-name groups but
very good.
Jake Chaffie
> Yes, I am *perfectly* reasonable! :-)
When are you *perfectly* reasonable?
> I am seeking forgiveness from those I have mistreated over the last 30
> years before I die. I know I sound like a bastard, don't I? But that
> is my past, and it's one I'm ashamed of. I know that this will
> probably be rejected, and if its not, I will be judged harshly anyway.
> But please, understand that I am not the same person anymore as the
> one who did all those horrible things. I have really changed, and
> would like to have forgiveness, not just from you, but from society.
> If you don't forgive me I'll know you're all a bunch of cunts.
Good grief! How ghastly.
> Well, that's why someone cross-posted.
That's why you should have one in your garage.
> I'll take your word for it. I've tinkered with Rosegarden and Ardour,
> and have had little trouble with ALSA and Jack.
I've told you that for years.
> Another reason would be that those products are produced by
> professional companies, and so they get set up to work for you, and
> marketed. I personally haven't seen a lot of marketed Linux audio
> stuff, though it is out there.
It's an indication.
> So you are saying the vendors generally don't support Linux in this
> area.
Linux is a 4 letter word.
> What do you do when you see an endangered animal that eats only
> endangered plants?
Messy.
> Cost.
It'll be expensive. Can you afford it?
> That, I don't know. As I noted, I barely tinker with music anymore
> (my old MT-32 sits idle, for example, and I have not upgraded Cakewalk
> in ages). However, if I got back into it, I am obviously not going to
> pay for or pirate packaged solutions. So, for me, it would be Linux
> (which is by far my preferred platform anyway).
I would have.
> I have not lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
Eat me.
> If at first I do succeed, I try not to look astonished.
How terribly alarming.
> No, but many others can, for you.
I don't have anything else to do.
> Apparently you can run Reaper in wine with great performance.
Has the treatment for your alcohol addiction and dependence problems
worked yet?
> Hmmmm, I know of musicians who have more than one guitar. How is
> *that* superior?
Sony's got some great cd players.
> Yes. You're saying there are more prepackaged "solutions" available
> on Windows. That is all.
Yes?
> Here's one guy who feels differently:
Who needs teeth?
> http://linux-sound.org/ardour-music.html
I am wondering who your intended audience is.
> Love the suit!
I think you are falling in love with me.
> I am thinking about having sex for the first time, but I know from my
> friends that it hurts, and I know through alittle experimentation that
> I am positive it would be painful for me, I want to know if there is a
> guy who can break me in, in the least painful way..Or am I doomed?
You break me up.
> Here's another:
What are you doing in this neck of the woods?
I just wish I could believe you.
> I have just been informed after being tested and tested and tested and
> all signs are pointing to ADD. I am very very confused. At First I
> though I just had a lot of energy and am normally very aggressive. I
> was hoping it would only be Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
I consider you to be a waste of time.
> Anyway, I always get a little suspicious when claims are made in a
> field where you can have everything from a know-nothing diva, to a few
> dudes with some guitars and amps, to a group that is essentially a
> sound lab, all doing "professional" music.
I always get a little suspicious when claims are made in a field where
me can have everything from a know too.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Daniel Gawade wrote:
>
>> Whenever this discussion comes up I ask people where the 5-10 hit albums
>> are?
>> Carol King Tapestry.
>> Boston.
>> Fleetwood Mac Rumours (yea I remember Tusk too ).
>> AeroSmith Toys in the Attic
>> ELP
>> Kenny Loggins
>> Chicago
>> The 5th Dimension
>> The Tops
>> Jackson 5
>> EWF
>
> That seems to place you possibly in the 60s age bracket. Yes?
About the same age as flatfish, it seems.
--
Fine day to work off excess energy. Steal something heavy.
Kadaitcha Man
> I actually bought a CD,
Fuck me dead. Wonders never cease.
--
Test signature
chrisv
>Jeff Beck is overrated, like Jimmy Page (but not nearly as overrated
>as Eric Crapton).
Best ever was Hendrix. No question in my mind. Van Halen close
behind.
Apanetjerekhem XV
news:rdrbk5h3ck4lvt65g...@4ax.com:
> No question in my mind.
No mind, no question.
--
A test sig
Scott Dorsey
>Hacking the instruments internals to death, as the original poster
>described it - there's no correlation between people doing that and
>achieving any famous musical work.
Bach doesn't count?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
anahata
> Assuming I run a Linux audio targeted distribution like 64studio, that
> means I have to run 2 separate systems. One for my general work and one
> for audio. How is that superior?
That's not a Linux vs. Windows issue. Many Windows DAW users also have
ther DAW standalone, not networked and not used for anything else, for
good reasons, mostly to do with stable and predictable performance of the
DAW.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk ==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk
Chris Ahlstrom
Guitars?
John McLaughlin
Eric Clapton
Leo Kottke
Segovia
All different.
Decent modern duos:
Shahin & Sepehr
Strunz & Farah
Rodrigo y Gabriela
It's like Linux apps, every one has their own list of favorites!
--
Caution: Keep out of reach of children.
DFS
> I'll probably catch a lot of catcalls over this, as I was a
> Linux advocate in the past,
Until you decided to drop the dishonest posing.
> but the main problem of 'Average User' of
> acquiring software and installing still exists.
Yes. A few months ago I asked cola "advocate$" to tell me how to install
software not in the repos. I got two half-ass replies:
1) RTFM
2) use different apps
All the other cola cockroaches scattered because they know that even in the
year 2010, their bullshit "operating system" is still a
techie-kludge-nightmare.
See http://www.digikam.org/drupal/download for an example
Don't forget that Linux made your Mac smoke when you tried to install it.
Such a piece of ....
Scott Dorsey
>
>Keep in mind that OS X is a certified UNIX os that is pretty much BSD
>UNIX based. Yet it is very friendly to the user in regards to
>installing new software. I can go to the depths of technical
>complexity, or just use it as is with whatever software I want that I
>can find on the internet. The same can be pretty much said for windows
>as well.
Actually not. After years of using Solaris package management (and the
somewhat cruder rpm package management), OSX is like going back in time
twenty years. You can install stuff, but every package comes with its
own installer, and you can't necessarily uninstall anything cleanly.
It's getting better, mind you.
DFS
> If you're talking about totally instrumental songs, yeah. But the
> guitar solo actually reached its peak in the 80's. The music in
> general was crap, but the guitar work, taken in isolation, was
> phenomenal.
> I prefer late 60's early 70's rock, but I have to acknowledge the
> guitar talent from the 80's.
Some face melters I enjoy:
1:52 to 2:38 of Passage To Bangkok (Rush, 2112)
1:30 to 1:50 of Good Times, Bad Times (Zeppelin, 1)
Stranglehold, start to finish (Ted Nugent, Ted Nugent)
parts of Eruption and You Really Got Me, Van Halen
Daniel Gawade
> That seems to place you possibly in the 60s age bracket. Yes?
Actually 42 years young. Based on my taste in music, my friends think I've
been re-incarnated.
GreyCloud
OpenSuse 11.2. x64 version too. Every website that I go to to solve
this problem... it never works.
>> Tho I like the philosophy of Linux and how it
>> works, there are areas that are badly disjointed like sound, video, and
>> just plain hard to get libraries... which leads you on a wild goose
>> chase. Which means you will probably give up and go elsewhere. The
>> Linux community needs to solve these problems about playback of
>> commercial DVDs,
>
> All my DVDs will pay in PCLInuxOS, Ubuntu and OpenSuse.
>
Ok, which media player are you using, and what are the steps to getting
the necessary files that don't break dependency rules?
>> the coherent synched libraries, getting a one-click
>> download and install solution, etc.
>
> What is hard about installing from a repository? Or about downloading an
> rpm or deb, and then double-clicking it?
>
If the repository doesn't have what you want, then you have to look
around for another one that does have it. This leads to wild goose chases.
>> The docs also need to be worked
>> over very carefully for accuracy and clarity and put into a central
>> indexed document.
>
> Are you saying the all the docs for OS X and every OS X app are all
> indexed in one single document?
>
Under XCode, yes.
They include Java, C, C++, Python, Ruby, Cocoa, Objective-C, X11, system
calls, system programming guidlines, kernel extensions,... the list goes
on. A lot of these references have links to other on line sources.
Mind you that it isn't perfect, but very close.
>> The complexity is huge, and one doesn't need to pull his hair out
>> looking all over the world for a scrap of information relating to a
>> problem. Right now, no operating system is close to being this way.
>
> .. ahhh .. I guess not...
>
>> Keep in mind that OS X is a certified UNIX os that is pretty much BSD
>> UNIX based. Yet it is very friendly to the user in regards to
>> installing new software.
>
> Keep in mind that installing new software is very friendly on most Linux
> based distros.
>
Well, I downloaded thru the depository MPlayer and it installed ok. But
it couldn't play a commercial dvd. I downloaded a lot of stuff thru the
depository search function. But one item is behind the times ...
NetBeans on the repository is only 6.5 when in fact the latest is at
6.8. So I went to Netbeans.org and downloaded the latest Linux rpm and
let Yast do its thing. Even tho it is easy for me to do, it still isn't
as automated as it should be... if you are the one that decides you want
to download the software, it also stands to reason that you also want it
installed and running... which in OS X case it does just that for you.
No muss no fuss.
>> I can go to the depths of technical
>> complexity, or just use it as is with whatever software I want that I
>> can find on the internet. The same can be pretty much said for windows
>> as well. I'll probably catch a lot of catcalls over this, as I was a
>> Linux advocate in the past, but the main problem of 'Average User' of
>> acquiring software and installing still exists. I've used Solaris and
>> many versions of linux, but only windows and OS X makes it easy. The
>
> Searching for OS X and Windows software is easier than searching for
> Linux based software? Uh huh. Sure.
>
Of course it is. No different than any other os. The problems come in
when you want that software download installed and running correctly.
I've found a lot of software on OpenSuse, like VLC for instance, that
downloaded ok... installed ok... but when it ran... well it started to
load (with the bouncing vlc symbol for a long time) then it just
disappeared. The second try it ran for a short time then crashed with a
pop-up dialog box wanting to know if you want to file a bug report.
This is where I just uninstalled vlc. Vlc works fine on OS X.
>> downside of windows is obvious... viruses and nasty malware. And some
>> of that malware can make a person go to drink. The only os now
>> available that hasn't given me any serious troubles is OS X. I've yet
>> to catch a virus, let alone any malware in over 6 years now.
>
> Good for you. I've yet to catch a virus, let alone any malware for
> around 10 years now... using Linux based systems.
>
Of course. Both oses have a common root: open source. All it takes to
be successful is a well integrated and managed package.