Hofman2k, ok, I see your point. But since live is already on Win and Mac, there should be nothing that is possible on the Mac made impossible under a good distribution of Linux. The heart of the system is the same. The plugin architecture could be a problem, but as I said higher, soon VSTs won't be a problem anymore (I really hope so), and already, Anleton is dealing with AU which is Mac only....
For sure, it would need more man power and developpement. And it is not a hardware thing, but truely a software thing, or better, an operating system thing: how the hardware you've got is exploited, do you HAVE to have it operated my corporations that lead you to less and less control over something that entered your life quite a bit ? Just a question.
Hambone1: it is not a question of hardware. Linux systems are OS, running on any hardware, faster on faster hardwares.... There is a performance benefit using Linux of course, but there is also a conceptual, philosophical matter.
Ultra fast future hardware will run ultra fast linux systems as well as Win and Mac systems....
Cheers,
amo
Linux + Live
It's not that i fear that some features will disappear. It's more that it will slow down the evolutionary process of Live.amo wrote:Hofman2k, ok, I see your point. But since live is already on Win and Mac, there should be nothing that is possible on the Mac made impossible under a good distribution of Linux. The heart of the system is the same. The plugin architecture could be a problem, but as I said higher, soon VSTs won't be a problem anymore (I really hope so), and already, Anleton is dealing with AU which is Mac only....
For sure, it would need more man power and developpement. And it is not a hardware thing, but truely a software thing, or better, an operating system thing: how the hardware you've got is exploited, do you HAVE to have it operated my corporations that lead you to less and less control over something that entered your life quite a bit ? Just a question.
Cheers,
amo
And about AU's. It just makes sense that optimized code will result in better plugins. Take Automat as the biggest example. CPU efficient as hell. Amazing sound. And a hardworking dedicated developer. (and it's free)
Is cheaper hardware and the ability to tinkle around with the apps code the only reason you want a linux port. Or is there something i'm missing.
Because i don't feel like i have less and less control due to the corporations.
No it's not for me about cheapest hardware, but getting better from the hardware I've got.
I'm on XP, so we are on a different boat. I speak of less control, meaning, on PC at least, there are million things your computer does, automate, not allows you to do, all on the behalf of the OS. Reading what is planed for Longhorn, restrictions about formats to fight piracy.... Isn't it to push proprietary formats ?
Maybe OSX is less of a marketing bull, and is promising that way. I don't like it much though (use it everyday with Pro Tools), but seems more "open" (thanks to UNIX architecture).
So the point is to somehow master the architecture of the computer I own. I don't mean cheap hardware, but dedicated hardware. Like:If I want to have a machine to do music, I have that only - and it doesn't cook coffee or tries to sell me tunes of Brtney S**** .... whatever.
I don't think I'm paranoid with longhorn etc... but it is just a general thing that I like to have control over these kind of things, like I would hate top have a car that drives on its own, and worst, that would choose gas station on its own.
Not to forget that the main point is dedication of the machine and performance.
Cheers,
amo
I'm on XP, so we are on a different boat. I speak of less control, meaning, on PC at least, there are million things your computer does, automate, not allows you to do, all on the behalf of the OS. Reading what is planed for Longhorn, restrictions about formats to fight piracy.... Isn't it to push proprietary formats ?
Maybe OSX is less of a marketing bull, and is promising that way. I don't like it much though (use it everyday with Pro Tools), but seems more "open" (thanks to UNIX architecture).
So the point is to somehow master the architecture of the computer I own. I don't mean cheap hardware, but dedicated hardware. Like:If I want to have a machine to do music, I have that only - and it doesn't cook coffee or tries to sell me tunes of Brtney S**** .... whatever.
I don't think I'm paranoid with longhorn etc... but it is just a general thing that I like to have control over these kind of things, like I would hate top have a car that drives on its own, and worst, that would choose gas station on its own.
Not to forget that the main point is dedication of the machine and performance.
Cheers,
amo
Live 5.0.3 - IBM Thinkpad R51 1.5ghz Centrino - 1,5 Go RAM - 7200 RPM 2nd HDD intern - RME Multiface - Windows XP Pro SP2
Thanks !hoffman2k wrote:Good luck with thatamo wrote:.
Not to forget that the main point is dedication of the machine and performance.
Cheers,
amo
You're talking to a dual cpu user.
Cheers
Bjorn
Only a dream.....
amo
Live 5.0.3 - IBM Thinkpad R51 1.5ghz Centrino - 1,5 Go RAM - 7200 RPM 2nd HDD intern - RME Multiface - Windows XP Pro SP2
-
tomperson
- Posts: 1018
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:55 am
- Location: MVD, Uruguay, South America
- Contact:
Electronic music has democratized to a great extent music production. Just imagine trying to do what we are doing now 20 years ago. We would need a room full of racks of expensive hardware. Digital recording was almost a dream. Hence, conceptually, Linux is the way if we are to follow that path of musical democratization.
Then, there's the technical side of things. As many have pointed, Windows systems are made to perform lots of tasks, and it's not really suited for in-depth customization of the way it works. The linux world is much more accustomed to this kind of O/S "modding", because you can get the source code of your favourite Linux distribution and change what needs to be changed. I don't mean average musicians would be willing to do that, but specialists could do Audio Linux distributions for "normal people", the possibility is there. Just pop in the CD and install the thing. All for much less than what costs a Windows license. And without being tied to whatever_new_corporate_policy_or_great_idea they come up with.
You would end up with a stronger, customized O/S, not prone to "Explorer Hijacks", Worms, Trojans, and a plethora of Windows security issues. You would end up with a system that fits most budgets. That is known to run faster than Windows even with slower, older hardware. Use your resources for what you need, not for some new stupid internet_shopping service that is bundled with your system.
And once again: Running an app on Linux doesn't mean it has to be free or open source. Ask the guys at Oracle else!
I for one do not dislike Windows XP, it's been running quite good for me doing audio work, but if Linux was a real possibility, I would use it. And it seems that this is the same for lots of us.
Open your minds. This is what music/art is all about.
Cheers.
Then, there's the technical side of things. As many have pointed, Windows systems are made to perform lots of tasks, and it's not really suited for in-depth customization of the way it works. The linux world is much more accustomed to this kind of O/S "modding", because you can get the source code of your favourite Linux distribution and change what needs to be changed. I don't mean average musicians would be willing to do that, but specialists could do Audio Linux distributions for "normal people", the possibility is there. Just pop in the CD and install the thing. All for much less than what costs a Windows license. And without being tied to whatever_new_corporate_policy_or_great_idea they come up with.
You would end up with a stronger, customized O/S, not prone to "Explorer Hijacks", Worms, Trojans, and a plethora of Windows security issues. You would end up with a system that fits most budgets. That is known to run faster than Windows even with slower, older hardware. Use your resources for what you need, not for some new stupid internet_shopping service that is bundled with your system.
And once again: Running an app on Linux doesn't mean it has to be free or open source. Ask the guys at Oracle else!
I for one do not dislike Windows XP, it's been running quite good for me doing audio work, but if Linux was a real possibility, I would use it. And it seems that this is the same for lots of us.
Open your minds. This is what music/art is all about.
Cheers.
Turn up the radio. Turn up the tape machine. Look into the sunset up ahead. Roll the windows down for a better taste of the cool desert wind. Ah yes. This is what it's all about. Total control now.
yes
Linux is open, rock-solid, alternative and sexier than anything else. Running Live on Linux would be fantastic of course. A revolutionairy step. Ableton would be the first manufacturer to do this. OSX and Linux might be a little more or less the same core-wise maybe? This might make things easier.
Even without added plugins, Live + Impulse + Simpler + Operator would be supah dupah!
Even without added plugins, Live + Impulse + Simpler + Operator would be supah dupah!
Re: yes
To be honest, Live 5 has made quite a few of my vsts obsolete, the new fx and the ways you can combine them are just brilliant.raapie wrote:Even without added plugins, Live + Impulse + Simpler + Operator would be supah dupah!
I don't think i have that many vsts that I couldn't live without if they were to be replaced with something better.
-
tomperson
- Posts: 1018
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:55 am
- Location: MVD, Uruguay, South America
- Contact:
And think about saving your beloved bucks for a new Live upgrade instead of a M$ license. Good, ain't it? 
Turn up the radio. Turn up the tape machine. Look into the sunset up ahead. Roll the windows down for a better taste of the cool desert wind. Ah yes. This is what it's all about. Total control now.
I used Gentoo Linux with a 2.6 kernel for over a year with no problems. I went back to XP because of Ableton Live and I really hate windows.
Linux is the way to go for performance for two reasons:
1) Stability. You can make a system (fairly easily with Gentoo) that is designed to do nothing but run your auido applications, keyboard, USB, and audio intterfaces. No network. No BS hardware problems, because no unnecessary hardware would be supported. And drivers for the hardware you need could be compiled into the kernel. No driver conflicts.
2) Portability. You can make said customized OS fit on a CD. You can compile one to run on Mac hardware and another for Intel and another for AMD, all of it for free. Then, you can use whatever computer is available to you. Clubs could start putting computers in booths and you wouldn't have to bring your own computer. Of course, you'd still need everything else, but meh.
Yeah, i know what you're thinking: FS1 tried that and it was a bitch. But, you know what, they screwed up. The concept was not wrong, they just sucked at making it useable for non-techies.
Linux is the way to go for performance for two reasons:
1) Stability. You can make a system (fairly easily with Gentoo) that is designed to do nothing but run your auido applications, keyboard, USB, and audio intterfaces. No network. No BS hardware problems, because no unnecessary hardware would be supported. And drivers for the hardware you need could be compiled into the kernel. No driver conflicts.
2) Portability. You can make said customized OS fit on a CD. You can compile one to run on Mac hardware and another for Intel and another for AMD, all of it for free. Then, you can use whatever computer is available to you. Clubs could start putting computers in booths and you wouldn't have to bring your own computer. Of course, you'd still need everything else, but meh.
Yeah, i know what you're thinking: FS1 tried that and it was a bitch. But, you know what, they screwed up. The concept was not wrong, they just sucked at making it useable for non-techies.
If only you, me and DEAD people could read hex, would we need this forum?
I've been running Mepis Linux (www.mepis.com) since March. I'm still tied securely to Windows because of Live, Reaktor, and Reason, but Mepis Linux is so good that I actually went out and bought a separate computer JUST to run my audio apps, since running a dual-boot system was starting to get annoying (I'd have to reboot to get into Windows, and then reboot again to get back into Linux later on). Absolutely everything else I need a computer for, Mepis already has (or I can get for free from the Debian software repositories).
A couple of weeks ago my company sent me to a Microsoft preview session for Longhorn. The funniest thing was that most of the new features they were trying to wow us with caused me to think only one thing: "I can already do all that in KDE (the default desktop manager Mepis uses). What's the big deal?"
There were a few things Longhorn could do that KDE couldn't, but I'll bet you by the time Longhorn is released in fall of 2006, KDE will have already incorporated those features as well.
If you haven't already checked out Linux, and have a spare system to run it on, you might want to give Mepis a look-see. It's got a Live CD, so you can fully explore it without even installing anything. And if you like what you see, the Live CD allows you to install to the harddrive.
If I could get a version of Live, Reaktor, and Reason, that ran reliably on Linux, I'd drop Windows in a heartbeat.
A couple of weeks ago my company sent me to a Microsoft preview session for Longhorn. The funniest thing was that most of the new features they were trying to wow us with caused me to think only one thing: "I can already do all that in KDE (the default desktop manager Mepis uses). What's the big deal?"
There were a few things Longhorn could do that KDE couldn't, but I'll bet you by the time Longhorn is released in fall of 2006, KDE will have already incorporated those features as well.
If you haven't already checked out Linux, and have a spare system to run it on, you might want to give Mepis a look-see. It's got a Live CD, so you can fully explore it without even installing anything. And if you like what you see, the Live CD allows you to install to the harddrive.
If I could get a version of Live, Reaktor, and Reason, that ran reliably on Linux, I'd drop Windows in a heartbeat.
Martyn wrote:Sorry, that's complete bollocks.amo wrote:Though I would understand that Ableton would:
-Not like to give source code to anybody
-Not like to give licenses for free
Damn straight.
I've posted a number of time about live in Linux and see no reason for it to be an issue.
Once the problem was a lack of pluggin support ie. no VST binaries etc. - this has been overcome
The app can be sold as normal with a very small patch download to run the installer and redirect content.
This is done with PC games and network / security software regularly and with great results.
The issue is probably development time and motivation...
No point porting an app unless people use it
SO GET YOUR VOICES HEARD!
I love Linux, and I've got a box running Planet CCRMA with all of the wacky *nix mangling programs. (Freqtweak is awesome, if you've never tried it.)
Linux is a barren wasteland for software vendors who want to actually make money. Sorry, just the truth. Supporting the Linux "platform" is a complete moving target, and there are about 14 people who will actually license your software once you get it running.
What *might* happen is the clone thing. Live is such a fabulous program that somebody will eventually decide to try to clone it as open source. If the developers are talented, then Ableton will have some problems...if the developers are less-than-talented, then everyone can have a laugh. Laughing is the likely outcome, because Live is a really sweet piece of work that would be very hard to clone. (People did, however, say that building an OS would be hard, of course....)
Linux is a barren wasteland for software vendors who want to actually make money. Sorry, just the truth. Supporting the Linux "platform" is a complete moving target, and there are about 14 people who will actually license your software once you get it running.
What *might* happen is the clone thing. Live is such a fabulous program that somebody will eventually decide to try to clone it as open source. If the developers are talented, then Ableton will have some problems...if the developers are less-than-talented, then everyone can have a laugh. Laughing is the likely outcome, because Live is a really sweet piece of work that would be very hard to clone. (People did, however, say that building an OS would be hard, of course....)
I wouldn't wipe my ass with Linux. I like making music, not dicking around trying to compile a kernel or dealing with dependency problems, driver issues, etc. I've tried Linux about 10 times, always expecting something I can use, but it never comes through. Christ I couldn't even install the so called "audio distros" Demudi and Rehmudi. I never even got to see the desktop of either one due to hardware incompatibility. Until they make a Linux distro that "just works", I'll stick with XP, which has been absolutely trouble free for me from day one. Why would I want to change?