-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Gustin Johnson wrote: >> This is the wrong question IMO. FLOSS is where it is because people >> wrote software that *they* themselves wanted. The question of mass >> appeal is IMO irrelevant. If FLOSS does not do what you want it to, >> either make the changes yourself or hire someone to do it. > > And it's allowed to take care to the needs of people with different > needs and opinion than yours too, by people who make FLOSS for Windows > and also by people who make FLOSS for Linux. I never mentioned Windows or Linux in this context. FLOSS to me refers to each piece of software, be it a kernel (Linux), an OS (the GNU stack, plus X etc.) or individual projects like Firefox, OpenOffice, Koffice, etc. To me the platform is almost irrelevant. I am really happy that there are FLOSS based platforms (the BSDs, GNU/Linux) but I would also note that Ardour runs fine on Mac OSX. > > You are right, FLOSS for MIDI don't do what I want to do it, but > fortunately a lot of FLOSS is exactly doing what I want it to do for me, > less why I set it to do so, but most of it, because it does this by default. > > I programmed a lot of FLOSS myself and I take care about what other > people wanted. I does this not for Linux and not for Windows, but I know > at least one group, that seems to think about what other people want to > have too for Linux, if I haven't misunderstood Hermann, he and some > people do so. That is the developer's prerogative. It is no more "right" or "good" than a FLOSS developer writing code solely for his or her own consumption. The rest of us have to exercise personal responsibility in meeting our own needs. This can be accomplished in more ways than simply writing code or paying money (though those are two very common methods of getting things done). > >>> I guess that GNOME was a good choice for 64 Studio 2.1, because it's a >>> DE that won't force people to read manuals or just to radically change >>> their habits, if they know Fluxbox, KDE, Win 98se or Win XP, they easyly >>> can work with GNOME. >>> While companies for proprietary stuff do market research, because they >>> will make money, they not only will manipulate the customers, they also >>> will satisfy real needs for professional audio studios and homerecording >>> people. >> That is their prerogative to do so and I have no problem with that. >> >>> Apple and Microsoft should be enemies, but it would be clever not to >>> ignore the needs of non-computer-freaks, that are just users. The users >>> aren't enemies, even if many from the Linux community treat "stupid >>> users" like enemies. >> This is where there is confusion. What most FLOSS people are hostile to >> are ignorant users who take no personal responsibility. I paid no one >> for the first Linux distro that I installed. I was pleasantly surprised >> that there was a community that supported this software, for no cost. >> All that was expected is that I took the time to do basic research, use >> my own brain, and then ask questions. The fact that some people take >> offence when it is suggested that they RTFM, well I suspect we are >> better off without them. > > "RTFM" is very, very clever ;). I'm a dyslexic and I started with pro > audio and video in the age of 17 in 1984 , at the audiovisual media > centre at the university / comprehensive university Essen, I become a > coder for the C64 some years later, coded a MIDI sound sampler and other > MIDI stuff, some years after this I got an Atari ST with Cubase. At last > I worked some years as freelancer and employee as engineer for Brauner > microphones. > When I use the term RTFM, it is safe to assume that it is a synonym for research. Often there is no manual with FLOSS software, and not everyone can figure out code (I am not a "real" coder, but source code does not scare me). So, RTFM = research A lot of the frustration comes from people asking questions when it is clear they did not even try a single google search. I keep posting this link, but perhaps I should make it be a part of my signature: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > I know pro-audio and homerecording and the GUIs since 1984. I also have > no problem with reading manuals, but tools like software should be easy > to use. If you are working as audio engineer, you won't read the user > manual for a Neve, when you were working before with a Yamaha console. > Fortunately nobody with my background needs to read the manual for > Rosegarden, to know how to use it. But applications like Rosegarden are > the way they are, because they imitate the way classic proprietary > software is, while proprietary classic software imitated analogous > equipment years before. Like Linux does today for many applications, > proprietary software and the beginning for audio was proprietary, > started by doing some mistakes. The C64 Supertrack (a very good > sequencer) and the Atari ST Notator used a user interface that wasn't as > good, as user interfaces are today. Rosegarden, Qtractor, Cubase, > ProTools today have analogous tape like tracks, from the left to the > right, also Logic Audio (it's from the one who has invented Supertrack > and Notator) works like Rosegarden, Qtractor and Cubase do. Before > Cubase there was also a different concept for Steinberg's user interface. > > It's stupid to insist on old views and it's stupid to ignore something > that is well proved in all all days studio work. Sometimes we don't have a choice (eg. the evils of software patents). Sometimes things are the way they are because the developer did not know of another way, or perhaps he or she was limited by their abilities or time, or <insert one of lifes million and one limitations here>. One thing I will say, is that I am not sure that Cubase falls into the category of "... something that is well proved in all all days studio work". It can work certainly, but it does insist on a certain work flow. Even if that work flow is popular, it may not be efficient or even appropriate. The QWERTY keyboard is popular in English countries, but it is far from the best keyboard layout. > I won't read a user manual to know how to use a tin opener. I know how > to use proved tin openers. What should be better with a tin opener, for > that the user needs to be able to read? I never heard about, that there > is the need to read, to make music, so why should RTFM be useful, if > it's proved that there are ways that will work for audio software > without reading manuals all the time. > There was a time in your past when you did not know what to do with a can and a can opener. You at some point *learned* something. This may not have come from a book but you did learn. FLOSS is the same, you may not always get a book that tells you what to do, but almost always there is some mechanism for you to learn on your own. > I'm fine with GNOME and I'm able to install KDE for my needs, without > any help, but some people are not fine with it. What's wrong with > listening to their needs and to take care about them? Space and support constraints. I do not see what the problem is with the current system. Gnome by default, the others are options we can install if we decide to. There is only so much space on a CD or DVD disk (I hear people still use those quaint things). Also, a single consistent GUI helps us help the newcomers by reducing the number of variables. >>> You misunderstood my question and you are right, if I would know for >>> myself what Windows I should run, I should and I would ask this where >>> people might be, that have more experiences with Windows. >>> I'm thinking about, what would be the best way, that Linux audio should >>> go. Maybe it should be for people with the interest to know a lot about >>> the OS they use, for people with unusual habits and needs for audio work >>> and perhaps it should be for people having classical habits, when >>> working with audio and some of them might not be interested in how the >>> OS they use, will work. >> Linux audio should go where Linux audio will go. Apart from being >> cryptic, this means that the developers will take it where they see fit. >> If I have a strong desire for it to progress in a certain fashion, I can >> contribute code or dollars, the amount of which would likely be >> proportionate to the strength of my desires. Otherwise I do not >> *expect* my desires to be satisfied. >> >> Having said that, I am continuously impressed with the quality and >> usefulness of FLOSS to me, in nearly all of my computational endeavours. > > I'm fine especially with Linux for nearly all my needs. Until now MIDI > don't work and I can't say much about animation. > >>> What should be the WM/DE for 64 Studio > version 3.0? >> Does it really matter? For those of us who have a strong preference, we >> can install the WM/DE of our choice. For everyone else, I doubt that >> they would know the difference or even care. > > But someone asked for Fluxbox and others agreed. It wasn't me! IMO GNOME > is the better choice instead of Fluxbox, while I use KDE. > But I guess their wants have a reason. > They can all install what they want. I don't see what the fuss is about. >>> The better question is, what MacOS and what Windows do producers for >>> audio use and what are the reasons for that? Followed by the question, >>> are there some points that should Linux also do the way a MacOS or >>> Windows does? >> I don't care. I care what this FLOSS stuff does/can do for me. >> I think that the FLOSS community spends way too much time worrying about >> what Apple or Microsoft is doing. The KDE4 project is not trying to >> implement features because some other project or company is, they are >> basing their work on plan based on usability studies and their own >> experience. So, in this limited example, what the other OSs are doing >> would limit the KDE4 people's ability to truly innovate. > > Nonsense, the whole Windows like idea is from Mac or Atari, I can't see > many new ideas for KDE4, that wasn't there in the 80ies. > You are obviously not very familiar with the KDE4 project. Looking at screen shots does not count :) Also keep in mind that KDE4 has been in development for a long time. Some of the ideas that formed it were quite unique when they were announced. The default interface as provided by the distros that ship it, have maintained that 80's look and feel, but under the hood is so much more. That default look was driven by user feedback who complained that things were too different. >> This is not to say that there are no lessons to be learned from these >> other projects, I just mean to say that we should not obsess with them. > > And here I agree with you ;). Especially frustration about things that > aren't fine for FLOSS, but that are fine for software by companies with > lots of money, shouldn't blur the vision, that something that is buggy > for FLOSS and not buggy for proprietary software, can become better for > FLOSS by going a complete other way than e.g. Windows goes, but even > than it can help sometimes to take a look at Windows to preserve to do > the same mistakes they have done. > It would be naive to think that developers do not do this. In fact many of them are motivated by their experiences on other platforms. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJLyfPwRXgH3rKGfMRAgpxAJ4g3mLzTW5Xmg4HDpwgW8CStyTQDACeNQO0 f8sGUgOCwHtwCTEXIM8ARnk= =FocG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
