I'm taking a short break from musical activities that have kept me busy since mid July (and will continue to do so) to take a peek at lad. This caught my interest.
> I'm leaning towards the point of view that asks "Why do we need
another
> distro ?". I'm not sure that's going to be an attraction for a
musician
> who has already installed Linux, only to find that he has to re-install
> some other version of Linux to obtain the best audio performance.
And
> unless it offers all the other amenities of Red Hat or SuSe or
Mandrake
> then I'm not sure I'd be interested in it either.
This is true "for a musician who has already installed Linux" but I think that much of the lad activity will ultimately reach many of the other 99.99% of musicians, those who have not yet installed Linux (such as myself).
I see two main reasons for addressing the audio distro issue.
1) Integrating quality audio into a standard desktop environment.
2) Providing a professional quality Linux based DAW.
While there is much overlap, the two issues are different. Since my current interest is in a DAW, I will only address this point. To reach more (currently non-Linux savvy) musicians and provide them with professional tools, one way to evaluate this is to look at what is currently reaching non-Linux savvy musicians. Mackie and Tascam are offering 24 track dedicated hard disk recorders. Akai and Yamaha are offering multi-track digital mixers with integrated hard disk recording. In the arena of dedicated hardware, these products are breaking new ground from a $/track and ease of use/integration perspective. They will succeed in the marketplace. They are also much more limited than a full blown DAW, and a fully developed DAW could do everything that they do. So what do they have that a current DAW doesn't, that results in their success? They are based on embedded system architectures that allow the user to turn it on, record music, and turn it off. No more and no less.
Can a Linux DAW provide this level of simplicity by integrating audio functions into a standard distro? Probably, but it might be more trouble than it is worth right now (unless your desire includes reason 1 above).
If I wanted to create a Linux DAW right now that provided "turn it on, record music, turn it off" functionality, I would take an embedded system approach. I would choose the soundcard and apps that work best right now for my style and create a dual boot machine with a standard distro and a stripped down distro that only supported my chosen hardware and audio apps. Essentially I would be a curator who makes all of the decisions up front and allows the user to simply turn it on, record music, and turn it off. Musicians aren't going to think about 2.2.x vs 2.4.x vs Ingo's patches vs Andrew's patches. They are not interested in downloading 3 different mixers and choosing their favorite one. They don't even really want the ability to choose their hard drive or update their software, they would rather pay someone a modest fee to do it for them.
The point that I think I am making is that while it may be too much work to build an audio distro that would satisfy a developer, a distro that only supported one soundcard, one mixer, one recorder, and one editor would be a much simpler task. And it is what most musicians actually want. To do this, think embedded. Embedded typically means inaccessible, with limited resources due to financial or space restrictions. But in this case embedded simply means the ability to "function" as a sealed box without requiring the user to perform ANY system administration. While the current generation of audio apps may not be sufficiently developed to warrant this kind of distro yet, I feel that this approach will be the quickest way to deliver a Linux DAW, sometime in the next year or two.
Back to recording,
Tom
