http://www.agnula.org/
http://www.agnula.org/project/contributions_to_ec
http://www.agnula.org/project/who
When Linux will be optimized for audio, then will be no choice...
Why Creamware must go on Linux...!
Grok, you really read all this ? I simply disagree, they'll talk it to death.
Write plans for projects and talk about it again. This will continue forever.
It's the time of talking, not doing.
Open source will never succeed because no real wizz would throw away the results of his work for nothing.
That would be against human nature.
Those prophecies... 'freedom' ...at the end of the project you will be able...
It would be easier (and faster) to write a dedicated OS for music from scratch.
Hardware is that cheap today, that you can afford a machine for music, and one for general purpose use, and one for gaming or whatever.
cheers, Tom
Sure, Astroman, but have you seen the sum of knowledges there is in this project, IRCAM, ...etc...(remember SAM, GRM Tools,...and much other things). All these teams are highly competitives!!! They are in the top of audio and musical researches!!!
It's seems that now there is a very serious project for DAWs based on Linux.
This means a revolution in DAW industry, for the benefit of all users
I'm just waiting...
It's seems that now there is a very serious project for DAWs based on Linux.
This means a revolution in DAW industry, for the benefit of all users
I'm just waiting...
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Can't take the time to read all the articles (I will soon or later) but I've thought about this alot before. Simple reason: When I was studying computer music, EVERYTHING was done on Unix. And so does everyone else in the world of academics. Most all the software is free and open source.. just one problem though. The entire system is pretty unstable. Probably because half the programs are under research, and the other half are experimental. Another problem was that whenever I needed something that wasn't already written, I had to write my own.
Now, I am definitely sure there are many benefits to this. Like my professor (who did part of the sound engine design for MacOS X) used to say, "When something doesn't work, you know you're on the cutting edge". Which is very true. Many of the software in the field of academics (many of which are exposed in IRCAM and such) are very, very advanced, but it's so advanced that the code isn't optimized or the code is buggy. But if you're on an intellectual search for the ultimate DAW, then sure, this would be the awesome way to go.
On the other hand, we have win/mac plus consumer music software package that is locked in a tight business orientated market. Source ain't opened so no one can further develop anything but the publisher. It also comes at a juicy price so you're limited as to which software you can use. And of course, half the stuff is accomodated to cover a wide range of tasks at the expense of accuracy and innovation. So this is pretty much the other end of the spectrum where convenience over rides intellectual innovation. So naturally, it fits the man of a similar scope. Which probably would be a working composer who needs to compose not a paradigm shift, but simply a tune, in matters of hours. No coding, no researching, no battling with the compiler. It's all there.
This is a big line between R&D and a composer. As for me, when I compose, I hate to do R&D. I want everything to work the way they're supposed to, and I need to know what's possible and what's not. The limit sometimes urges creative thinking. So during such times, working with a conventional DAW with limited possibilities won't hurt at all.
But then, when I'm not composing, like during my "off" periods, I do lots of R&D creating lots of new patches and trying to find new musical ideas to do. When I'm in that mode, I don't care if things work smoothly or not. It's more of the innovative factor that I look for. So during such periods, I'd look into nord mod patching and csound fiddling, spectrum analysing other people's mixes and stuff. For this, I could use a Unix system at the expense of loosing time making things work, but that's what R&D is about anyway.
But creamware going Linux/Unix is sort of a problem with another vectore. Problem is, even if the entire platform was ported to Unix, including the scope DP package, I'd say not many would be interested because the possibilities are limited by what atoms creamware releases. I doubt the Unix community would be very appreciative of such attitude. But if creamware releases all sources, chances are, we all might end up with no more creamware. It's two different groups of people, different interests, different expectations.
But I do understand what you're trying to say. Things might become interesting that way.. who knows? Someone MAY come up with a fully csound compatible, c++ compatible DSP card. But it would probably be so expensive that only academic organizations would be able to afford it. And because of the "open source" idea, you probably can't make any money off of it. Or else the authors are going to start asking for money.
Now, I am definitely sure there are many benefits to this. Like my professor (who did part of the sound engine design for MacOS X) used to say, "When something doesn't work, you know you're on the cutting edge". Which is very true. Many of the software in the field of academics (many of which are exposed in IRCAM and such) are very, very advanced, but it's so advanced that the code isn't optimized or the code is buggy. But if you're on an intellectual search for the ultimate DAW, then sure, this would be the awesome way to go.
On the other hand, we have win/mac plus consumer music software package that is locked in a tight business orientated market. Source ain't opened so no one can further develop anything but the publisher. It also comes at a juicy price so you're limited as to which software you can use. And of course, half the stuff is accomodated to cover a wide range of tasks at the expense of accuracy and innovation. So this is pretty much the other end of the spectrum where convenience over rides intellectual innovation. So naturally, it fits the man of a similar scope. Which probably would be a working composer who needs to compose not a paradigm shift, but simply a tune, in matters of hours. No coding, no researching, no battling with the compiler. It's all there.
This is a big line between R&D and a composer. As for me, when I compose, I hate to do R&D. I want everything to work the way they're supposed to, and I need to know what's possible and what's not. The limit sometimes urges creative thinking. So during such times, working with a conventional DAW with limited possibilities won't hurt at all.
But then, when I'm not composing, like during my "off" periods, I do lots of R&D creating lots of new patches and trying to find new musical ideas to do. When I'm in that mode, I don't care if things work smoothly or not. It's more of the innovative factor that I look for. So during such periods, I'd look into nord mod patching and csound fiddling, spectrum analysing other people's mixes and stuff. For this, I could use a Unix system at the expense of loosing time making things work, but that's what R&D is about anyway.
But creamware going Linux/Unix is sort of a problem with another vectore. Problem is, even if the entire platform was ported to Unix, including the scope DP package, I'd say not many would be interested because the possibilities are limited by what atoms creamware releases. I doubt the Unix community would be very appreciative of such attitude. But if creamware releases all sources, chances are, we all might end up with no more creamware. It's two different groups of people, different interests, different expectations.
But I do understand what you're trying to say. Things might become interesting that way.. who knows? Someone MAY come up with a fully csound compatible, c++ compatible DSP card. But it would probably be so expensive that only academic organizations would be able to afford it. And because of the "open source" idea, you probably can't make any money off of it. Or else the authors are going to start asking for money.
What they says about this project:
"AGNULA's main task will be the development of two reference distributions for the GNU/Linux operating system completely based on Free Software (i.e. under a FSF approved Free Software license) and completely devoted to professional and consumer audio applications and multimedia development. One distribution will be Debian-based (DeMuDi) and the other will be Red Hat-based (ReHMuDi). Both will be available on the network for download and on CD.
The project started on the 1st April 2002 and will last for two years. In the second year the project will also extend to hardware platforms other than PCs (e.g. PowerPCs, 64-bit architectures)."
They says that this GNU/Linux OS will be "completely devoted to professional and consumer audio applications and multimedia development", if it's true it's a good new!
"AGNULA's main task will be the development of two reference distributions for the GNU/Linux operating system completely based on Free Software (i.e. under a FSF approved Free Software license) and completely devoted to professional and consumer audio applications and multimedia development. One distribution will be Debian-based (DeMuDi) and the other will be Red Hat-based (ReHMuDi). Both will be available on the network for download and on CD.
The project started on the 1st April 2002 and will last for two years. In the second year the project will also extend to hardware platforms other than PCs (e.g. PowerPCs, 64-bit architectures)."
They says that this GNU/Linux OS will be "completely devoted to professional and consumer audio applications and multimedia development", if it's true it's a good new!
this reminds me of a research project (NanoLoop) where some students picked up a gameboy because of it's unbeatable simple and bulletproof user interface to build a complete micro sequencer written in basic.
I personally love Casios for their ui, one can learn a lot from these implementations.
The interface of Pulsar is also very sophistcated for it's power and simplicity.
My Korg 168 digital mixer basically has similiar routing capabilities, but the same setup takes at least 5 times longer.
To make music, it has to be simple and user-friendly, like Ken pointed out.
But no general purpose OS or (widespread)programming language has this facility at the moment.
I've seen (complete!) imlementations of user interfaces based on object-oriented programming WITHOUT C++. That language and Java are a main reason for lack of 'style' in many of today's projects.
A certain kind of design consequence would help much more, but the open source community isn't very strong on this imho. There are too many programmers for programming's sake out there.
Of course all this doesn't have anything to do with the 'scientific acoustic' content and competence of those links.
I'm just afraid this gets lost in a bunch of artificial technical barriers.
cheers, Tom
ps: just saw your post, Grok, after pasting my text
the time schedule says it all - the project will be history before it's actually running.
That's what I meant with 'talking to death' and 'coming to the point'.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-05 09:09 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-05 09:09 ]</font>
I personally love Casios for their ui, one can learn a lot from these implementations.
The interface of Pulsar is also very sophistcated for it's power and simplicity.
My Korg 168 digital mixer basically has similiar routing capabilities, but the same setup takes at least 5 times longer.
To make music, it has to be simple and user-friendly, like Ken pointed out.
But no general purpose OS or (widespread)programming language has this facility at the moment.
I've seen (complete!) imlementations of user interfaces based on object-oriented programming WITHOUT C++. That language and Java are a main reason for lack of 'style' in many of today's projects.
A certain kind of design consequence would help much more, but the open source community isn't very strong on this imho. There are too many programmers for programming's sake out there.
Of course all this doesn't have anything to do with the 'scientific acoustic' content and competence of those links.
I'm just afraid this gets lost in a bunch of artificial technical barriers.
cheers, Tom
ps: just saw your post, Grok, after pasting my text
the time schedule says it all - the project will be history before it's actually running.
That's what I meant with 'talking to death' and 'coming to the point'.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-05 09:09 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-05 09:09 ]</font>
I'm reading this page right now:
http://www.agnula.org/project/kick_off_meeting_acts.txt
"Bernardini: Ok, let's summarize the point. About the 64-bit machines we
will look for rent. I think that we have to buy and test: Intel, dual
processors, G3 (or ather else G4, Gn...), some Laptops... I suggest that
we will send to each other a list of hardware. Furthermore I think that
we should distinguish between: 1) applications that we use for different
things 2) applications that we use for audio
Meyer: We could use the most sold audio cards. Who will provide the list?
Dechelle-Lescurieux-Geiger-Amatriain: We will.
Bernardini: We should include also MIDI hardware and applications in
distributions
Dechelle: So we have to make a database with all the lists of hardware to
buy and to do the porting."
I'm anxious to know the list of the "most sold audio cards".
http://www.agnula.org/project/kick_off_meeting_acts.txt
"Bernardini: Ok, let's summarize the point. About the 64-bit machines we
will look for rent. I think that we have to buy and test: Intel, dual
processors, G3 (or ather else G4, Gn...), some Laptops... I suggest that
we will send to each other a list of hardware. Furthermore I think that
we should distinguish between: 1) applications that we use for different
things 2) applications that we use for audio
Meyer: We could use the most sold audio cards. Who will provide the list?
Dechelle-Lescurieux-Geiger-Amatriain: We will.
Bernardini: We should include also MIDI hardware and applications in
distributions
Dechelle: So we have to make a database with all the lists of hardware to
buy and to do the porting."
I'm anxious to know the list of the "most sold audio cards".
Ok, what do you think about this:
"Bernardini: Of course. I suggest that we put "DRAFT" in the subject of
the e-mail between us, if it is only a draft version of a document. Then,
if averyone agrees, we could put "OFFICIAL" in the subject, for a further
review (ready for publication). Remember: give us all the things that are
good for dissemination: articles, paper, ecc... Everything is good for
dissemination! So, what are we going to do with the Linux conferences?
Lescurieux: There is the Frankfurt Messe. It is the biggest fair for
technologies. IRCAM will participate at it, with a bus, and the main theme
wil be AGNULA. Also the AES would be very important."
AES? Things are becoming serious!
"Bernardini: Of course. I suggest that we put "DRAFT" in the subject of
the e-mail between us, if it is only a draft version of a document. Then,
if averyone agrees, we could put "OFFICIAL" in the subject, for a further
review (ready for publication). Remember: give us all the things that are
good for dissemination: articles, paper, ecc... Everything is good for
dissemination! So, what are we going to do with the Linux conferences?
Lescurieux: There is the Frankfurt Messe. It is the biggest fair for
technologies. IRCAM will participate at it, with a bus, and the main theme
wil be AGNULA. Also the AES would be very important."
AES? Things are becoming serious!
These guys http://www.alsa-project.org/~cdavid/ven ... /call.html are writing drivers for sound cards for Linux.
They can write reliable high performances drivers for Creamware's cards with Linux if only Creamware wants this. For free.
So why are our cards not supported for now? List of supported cards: http://www.alsa-project.org/~goemon/
It'll cost nothing to Creamware having Linux drivers. Nothing! They don't even have to do the job, just to be ok that it'll be done by serious coders.
They can write reliable high performances drivers for Creamware's cards with Linux if only Creamware wants this. For free.
So why are our cards not supported for now? List of supported cards: http://www.alsa-project.org/~goemon/
It'll cost nothing to Creamware having Linux drivers. Nothing! They don't even have to do the job, just to be ok that it'll be done by serious coders.
A Hammerfall is a simple, though highly sophisticated, IO interface.
from the link above:
We must be able to freely distribute the firmware code as part of ALSA. We would like the source code for firmware
Grok, there's your answer
btw:
last updated: April 22, 1999
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-05 20:30 ]</font>
from the link above:
We must be able to freely distribute the firmware code as part of ALSA. We would like the source code for firmware
Grok, there's your answer
btw:
last updated: April 22, 1999
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-05 20:30 ]</font>
without sounding harsh I think the chances of CW supporting linux are about as likely as them supporting xbox.
eat my words ? hehe
eat my words ? hehe
On 2002-06-04 19:16, Grok wrote:
http://www.agnula.org/
http://www.agnula.org/project/contributions_to_ec
http://www.agnula.org/project/who
When Linux will be optimized for audio, then will be no choice...
I don't get it, help me understand.
For *YEARS* people have begged, screamed, and cried for a true multi-thread, multi-tasking, modern OS, built from the ground up based on a *nix core with multimedia professionals in mind.
Whats wrong with Mac OS X?! Isn't this what everyone wanted?
Why does it have to be a a pure linux system?
** Ah yes, the answer must be that they give linux away for FREE. **
- sinix
For *YEARS* people have begged, screamed, and cried for a true multi-thread, multi-tasking, modern OS, built from the ground up based on a *nix core with multimedia professionals in mind.
Whats wrong with Mac OS X?! Isn't this what everyone wanted?
Why does it have to be a a pure linux system?
** Ah yes, the answer must be that they give linux away for FREE. **
- sinix
So, in a near future, when the professional audio market will be using Linux, as the server market does, because of the performances and the superiority of the Linux OS (without taking care of the fact that it's a free OS)....
What do you think Creamware is going to do? Creating bugs in a shitty Windows?
What do you think Creamware is going to do? Creating bugs in a shitty Windows?
What's wrong with Mac OS X? The price of Apple's hardwares, and the fact that the Mac intend to make his customers captives. Mac Intosh is always late with the technology (SDRam PC 133) and sell it at crazy prices.On 2002-06-06 07:01, sinix wrote:
I don't get it, help me understand.
For *YEARS* people have begged, screamed, and cried for a true multi-thread, multi-tasking, modern OS, built from the ground up based on a *nix core with multimedia professionals in mind.
Whats wrong with Mac OS X?! Isn't this what everyone wanted?
Why does it have to be a a pure linux system?
** Ah yes, the answer must be that they give linux away for FREE. **
- sinix
If Apple let Mac OS X run on a PC, things can be different.