Open Source Hardware (Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more)
Lee Revell wrote: Christ, what the fuck country do you live in? Don't you understand the concept of people having bills to pay? Or do you just assume the RME guys are independenly wealthy and just design sound cards for fun? Interestingly some people seem to be existing who are working on Linux for fun. Also there is a concept known as Open Source Hardware which was mentioned here before. Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:03 +0100, Esben Stien wrote: Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So basically they want to protect their investment in getting knowledge of how to implement a powerful firewire interface from the eyes of other hardware manufacturers. A society where you put money higher than cooperating with other people is not a good society, in my opinion. Christ, what the fuck country do you live in? Don't you understand the concept of people having bills to pay? Or do you just assume the RME guys are independenly wealthy and just design sound cards for fun? Sheesh. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So basically they want to protect their investment in getting knowledge of how to implement a powerful firewire interface from the eyes of other hardware manufacturers. A society where you put money higher than cooperating with other people is not a good society, in my opinion. -- Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esben-stien.name irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact [sip|iax]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Hello! Though I read about 50 percent of this thread, I don't know where exactly to add this replay. So I put it topmost. Eric S. Raymond has an opinion about that in his paper called The Magic Cauldron (17. Appendix: Why Closing Drivers Loses A Vender Money): http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron.html Read the whole paper if you wanna know, in which cases open or closed source makes sense. Andi
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Eliot Blennerhassett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: we at audioscience I will certainly put my eyes on audioscience now. Having a company working so close with the community is really great. -- Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esben-stien.name irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact [sip|iax]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Mark Knecht hat gesagt: // Mark Knecht wrote: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:09:17 +0100, Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.) This is so patently untrue I cannot imagine how you got here. GPL == GP License Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't create it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the license. Well, that's what I wrote: As long as you follow the license, you can do everything you want with it. The free software licenses are designed in a way, that you can do everything, that does not try to take away the right to do everything with the software from other users. Even the original owner, the autor of the software, cannot take away these rights once he released a piece of code under a libre license. In this way he is as much an owner as you are. (He is more owner in the case that he wants to double license his code under a non-free licens, but then this piece of code is not free software anymore. He still cannot take back the code he already had set free.) I am not strictly talking law here. But e.g. the FSF is working on freeing software from owners (Why Software Should Not Have Owners, [1]) by giving authors the same rights as users (and thus making them owners, too, in a way) [1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 21:43, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 01:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't make money and goes out of business. Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Mackie designs hardware and manufactures it in the USA. Behringer reverse engineers Mackie's (among others) design, replaces some parts with cheaper ones, and manufactures in China. Mackie has lost a lot of money as a result and has had to move some production abroad. I don't believe it's the only cause. It's like saying that the recording industry is losing money just becasue people are pirating stuff. Nobody there cares about the quality. Besides, Mackie doesn't target low-end market that much anyway. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee and Jan, i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :) I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out documentation or perhaps one free unit. My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :) The best bet would be to find a adat/smux card manufacturer which is able to release specs and keep the rest as far away from your pc as possible. :) Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:36, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. I don't think so. Currently there are new fw products coming out, in a few months time the audio market will be literally *flooded* with fw audio stuff. There's even mackie onyx analog mixer for which they offer an optional fw card for. Most of them *will* deliver 2-3ms latency i bet. And this under conditions which can't be guaranteed for many reasons(mostly rock-solid hw configuration which is guesswork to build most of the time, and *very* well tuned copy of windows that's installed). Heck i get crackles with a 256 setting with my fireface on an amd 2.2 system with amd761 northbridge and a g400(compared to what they claim, i.e. 1ms latency), don't ask what it does on a i815 chipset(which is crap chipset for critical applications such as audio but just to demonstrate). Of course i can't blame the hw manufacturers for that, it's simply impossible to guarantee that, it's just that it's achievable under some specific conditions. But nevertheless they *have* to deliver such performance because of the market. Now everybody does hiding it's own research from each other and the result is that there will be only these subtle differences in terms of performance. Who does suffer? Linux users. This just shows how healthy and benefitial the collaborative open source model is. Instead of working out an audio-over-ieee1394 standard they will just hide the stuff because everybody is just stealing. (their way of thinking) :/ So i think that no matter whether rme or other audio card manufacturer, in this case it's just not valid at all. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:35, R Parker wrote: --- Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee and Jan, i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :) I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out documentation or perhaps one free unit. My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :) I really hope you don't do that. My intention wasn't to post that on /. at least not now. I was thinking out loud. Of course, in case we did a market survey it would definitely be needed. RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. They got a lot of units sold in return and built a very good reputation based on that fact and this went beyond the linux audio world i believe. I hope you consider how much work has gone into Linux Audio But that's what i'm talking about. So much effort, oustanding technologies(although i know the authors won't admit ;) and they(hw manufacturers) don't care! and how difficult it is to develop that type of business relationship. There is no relationship. The only real manufacturer from the POV of linux audio is audioscience(.com), which unfortunately does only broadcast hw. They do ALSA drivers, provide support and invest their time and money in doing so. They deserve highest respect for that considering the current situation. That's how it should be. And this is what we should fight for. Whether you are in the right or wrong, is it inconcievable for you to act for the interests of many people by selling the unit and getting something else? Not sure i understand. I'm about to sell my fireface copy as i declared previously. Of course if there's any way i could help out other people here in keeping the unit, i'm prepared to do so. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:03, tim hall wrote: Last Saturday 27 November 2004 21:36, Lee Revell was like: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves - they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of business. In the case of the Swizz Army Tuner, the original designers were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them _even if they won_ so could not take action. I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the hardware business is. Yeah, If I was the MD of RME, after reading some of the responses on this thread I'd be thinking of flippin' the bird at all these ungrateful linux users. I think it's about defending the position of open source and its nature. And the work that people do here no matter whether for fun or not. From now on every company that doesn't do it like audioscience does, is a plain loser to me, no matter whether they provide specs or not. It's because other people do the actual work + support providing. If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare. Why the heck should we *always* understand them? Why can't they understand *us*? We're a minority group and I think the onus is on us to convince RME to produce a driver for their firewire hardware, politely and if necessary, via the florists ;-). OK, so closed-source drivers are far from ideal, but better than a hole in the head. http://www.audioscience.com If they can, who can't? I can't see the difference, can anyone explain? It means that the drivers can't be bundled with distros and we won't be able to provide users developers with technical support, which is a great shame. However, I suspect a certain amount of well-reasoned persistence will pay off here. Sure, our numbers on this list aren't great, but they are significant. There are many audio hw customers outside of this list (see CK's post for example, or judging form experience - somewhere on #gnome talking about rme ;) plus tons of talks on #lad - Q: hi, what's the best card for audio under linux? A: rme or if you don't have that much money, maudio) OK, _very_ few people are using firewire technology for music, up till now I'd considered it the preserve of mac/motu users. I think a majority of pc based audio hw will be fw based in the near future. Every manufacturer will have at least one product. Scary. I think we should continue to support RME where licenses allow and look forward to the day that they release their firewire drivers :-). That is going to be the day their hw becomes redundant on the market? Or even discontinued? That's the problem i'm seeing. I think we should keep up the pressure on manufacturers like MOTU too. They'll see sense eventually. ;-] I doubt it. They have their own sw products, like the DP. In their case i can pretty much understand why they don't do that if they see linux audio as a competition. Mine is an equally naive viewpoint, but with the knowledge that a little bit of positive thinking can go a long way, especially when backed up with a well-researched wish-list and plenty of patience. 2 years korg and now this. Trust me it's not possible to cope with that for a long time :) Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
[Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Cheers, Tim
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote: IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Closed source drivers are *the* evil force threatening open source and free software. Closed source drivers means no open source drivers, that's a simple fact. Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market) demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only drivers, NVidia rulez. If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine with me. There are still enough alternatives. But think about this: There are no alternatives in the graphics card market anymore. Think about, why this situation is so? In this regard, providing closed source drivers and not providing docs is even worse than not providing specifications only. It's a trojan horse, and a big part of the Linux community bites it. Just working may be enough for most users, but it is not enough for me. And that's not because I would be an RMS zealot (at least, RMS is smart enough, to not let the Trojan horse in). It's simply, what decades of open source history have told those, who know about it: It's not Linux, that's the threat to the Big Bosses, it's the idea of Free Software. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market) demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only Gone are the beautiful days, closed already (their 650, 750 and parhelia series - binary only) Oh BTW, just in case :) http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine with me. There are still enough alternatives. We're risking a case where the alternatives would soon be redundant technically or discontinued. And firewire is der letzte schrei, almost every manufacturer has got or prepares his own firewire product. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Marek Peteraj wrote: Oh BTW, just in case :) http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html Free as in Nelson Mandela :) ~ Simon
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. Jan
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:53, Jan Depner wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. Seems like a good idea to me. The 5044 cards offers 8 analog i/os of 24/192 and i wonder whether such card could not already be used for studio purposes. But in any case, they're very close. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 18:12 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Sure you can. The VIA unichrome cards have open 3D drivers. But, of course, it's not the best 3D hardware on the market. From the vendor's perspective if getting your device supported under linux means you _need_ to release an open source driver, you will find that the best hardware is disproportionately unsupported. Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. Lee
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Thanks for the vote of confidence! Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) Not so fast... we at audioscience would love to have some help with our ALSA driver and our underlying HPI driver. We are a small company that supports various Micros~1 flavours as well as Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel variations. I am the single person who does all the linux stuff, and would still say I don't know enough to do it easily or properly. (Of course I have had help from our customers and other alsa developers, and kudos to Takashi Iwai for doing the work to incorporate our ALSA driver into the alsa tree) So step right up... would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? Seems like a good idea to me. The 5044 cards offers 8 analog i/os of 24/192 and i wonder whether such card could not already be used for studio purposes. But in any case, they're very close. Marek regards Eliot Blennerhassett
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict: I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav, Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their* property anymore but free to use for a whole community. As we have Behringer as a subject currently: Behringer is a problem for Mackie, but we here invite people into our house to become Behringers, and to become a Behringer is a good thing here. Ardour is trying to become a Behringer for Digidesign. Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.) IP however and free software don't match very well together. Free software is at least a decade older than the term Intellectual Property (read the Wired-CD text to learn more), which was only coined as a term to fight free property, to fight sharing, to fight Behringers, etc. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:27:46AM +1300, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote: So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? I don't see any gross difference except the input/output connectors. Bundle the 5042 or 5044 with adapters or breakout boxes, and price them roughly in the ballpark (allowing for feature and/or spec differences) with M-audio's Delta 1010LT and 1010, and you might have another market to tap into. Worth investigating anyway. That's a pretty low price target, though. The Delta 1010 can be had for $500 new; the 1010 LT for considerably less. Another point of comparison would be Echo Layla for ~ $700 US. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 22:09 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict: I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav, Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their* property anymore but free to use for a whole community. I think you are confusing the distinction between software and hardware. I agree that software should be free. The issue here is what the software reveals about the hardware. This is the reason Linus allows binary Linux drivers, but not, say, a binary I/O scheduler. Lee
Re: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:20:33 -0500, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: Fine with me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay for, right? Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another Windows box. Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable quality and the same support as the Windows driver. Sure, I get it. However I think you and plug in a close source RME card driver and happily use it if it was available. I think Marek, Frank and others do not feel this way. I had no second thoughts about putting an NVidia controller in my dad's Linux box even though I used ATI up until then. My experience using both is no that different, but for me it's not political. Am I wrong when I think this desire is particularly European in nature? I'm so Open Market driven, especially when it comes to technology, that I hardly seem to understand this oter POV. However, I am interested. One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to eternity. There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People just don't shout too loud. :) Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely, for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition. Darn straight. However how did Marek end up being an RME customer when there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be? Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My fault. In my case I Was told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this device and in this position? I somehow don't think this is RME's fault... If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming that they do support alsa is just plain unfair. Marek
Re: audioscience [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 10:27, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote: Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Thanks for the vote of confidence! Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) Not so fast... we at audioscience would love to have some help with our ALSA driver and our underlying HPI driver. We are a small company that supports various Micros~1 flavours as well as Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel variations. I am the single person who does all the linux stuff, and would still say I don't know enough to do it easily or properly. (Of course I have had help from our customers and other alsa developers, and kudos to Takashi Iwai for doing the work to incorporate our ALSA driver into the alsa tree) So step right up... Hi Eliot, thanks for clarifying this up for us. Nevertheless i think that what you do is great and your the *only* company that does provide official alsa drivers and support for professional audio products(i know it's just you but anyway, the philosophy is cool). I think that you would get a lot of feedback if you entered the studio market. would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? I think that having a breakout box with 24/192 converters inside the breakoutbox would rock. 8 analog i/o is fine too. Most such devices usually offer around 26 channels of inputs + 26 chans of outputs, ~1/2 being digital. Hmmm now that i think about it, the 5042(the AES/EBU one) with a breakoutbox with analog i/o would be really cool. Not sure about how much load the DSP processor can handle and whether it's flotingpoint capable, but running a few ladspas on such DSP would be very nice too. :) Just some initial thoughts. Marek
Re: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:58, Mark Knecht wrote: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:25:09 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote: One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to eternity. There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People just don't shout too loud. :) Fair enough. There are companies here in Silicon Valley that take over 'end of life' chip designs and manufacturer them for a while to help customers, but there isn't much money in it most of the time, just as there is probably no financial reason for Korg to support that card. I didn't like it when DigiDesign said they weren't going to continue to support the 001 forever and I was forced into buying an 002 or going away from Windows. Unortunately there was no other platform that maintained my music investment as well so I stuck with Digi. That's the nature of technology. It gets outdated. Not too many companies making buggy whips anymore either... However how did Marek end up being an RME customer when there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be? Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My fault. And I am very sorry about that. You don't have to be. It is a disappointment I'm sure. You're a long ways away. If it was more practical I'd probably buy the unit from you. I have uses. I'm sure others will too. You'll sell it and get good money. Chalk the loss up to learning and remember...Trust, but verify. Agreed. It was a lesson to learn. Thanks for your 'heads up' :) In my case I Was told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this device and in this position? I somehow don't think this is RME's fault... If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming that they do support alsa is just plain unfair. RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux. They never stated such things. Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only excluded product is the Fireface. Marek
Re: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:32, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:19:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things.
Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response:
[linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only
excluded product is the Fireface.
Marek
Well, I don't know exactly what you're calling BS
No no you don't understand, i was quoting RME. I had a discussion with
them on their forum.
Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 11:05 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote: On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 01:20 +0100, CK wrote: I still don't see the point, the GPL _protects_ their IP rights It only protects the source of the driver. if I was the evil corporation trying to rip off rme I could aswell rip the thing apart and reverse engineer the code and the protocol, might still be cheaper than doing the rd work. You're close. It's most expensive to do your own RD. It's a bit cheaper to reverse engineer the products. It's a lot more cheaper to just grab a GPL'd product and learn from it. That's why companies are wary of releasing GPL drivers. They should do what Creative/EMU did for the emu10k1. Before releasing the opensource.creative.com drivers (making them among the first big players to support Linux by releasing GPL'ed drivers for a flagship product), they patented those aspects of hardware whose operation could be inferred by studying the open source driver. Problem solved. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 01:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't make money and goes out of business. Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Mackie designs hardware and manufactures it in the USA. Behringer reverse engineers Mackie's (among others) design, replaces some parts with cheaper ones, and manufactures in China. Mackie has lost a lot of money as a result and has had to move some production abroad. The folks at RME are not stupid. Lee
Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves - they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of business. In the case of the Swizz Army Tuner, the original designers were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them _even if they won_ so could not take action. I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the hardware business is. Lee
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Jan
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
CK wrote: I read: for the record, i sent a mail to rme as well and got exactly the same answer (in german) which i saw before here on this list. I still don't see the point, the GPL _protects_ their IP rights, if I was the evil corporation trying to rip off rme I could aswell rip the thing apart and reverse engineer the code and the protocol, might still be cheaper than doing the rd work. I think their point is another one: There are few companies that used firewire with all it's potential. RME is thinking they are the only ones, that uses all the potential in firewire. If the make a ALSA solution, their competitors have the same basis (that they think of is the best one) ... And since firewire is a very generic protocol they may be right :-(( Is this true, that a firewire driver for one card can be used with equal power for another card? Uwe -- voiceINTERconnect www.voiceinterconnect.de ... smart speech applications from germany
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
I read: Is this true, that a firewire driver for one card can be used with equal power for another card? what I was referring to is rather the idea to sell the same hardware with minor modification at very different prices and putting the limitations in the binary only driver (miro dc10 and dc30 as a prime example) regards, x -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Postmodernism is german romanticism with better http://pilot.fm/special effects. (Jeff Keuss / via ctheory.com)
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
139Uwe Koloska wrote: CK wrote: I read: for the record, i sent a mail to rme as well and got exactly the same answer (in german) which i saw before here on this list. I still don't see the point, the GPL _protects_ their IP rights, if I was the evil corporation trying to rip off rme I could aswell rip the thing apart and reverse engineer the code and the protocol, might still be cheaper than doing the rd work. I think their point is another one: There are few companies that used firewire with all it's potential. RME is thinking they are the only ones, that uses all the potential in firewire. If the make a ALSA solution, their competitors have the same basis (that they think of is the best one) ... And since firewire is a very generic protocol they may be right :-(( Is this true, that a firewire driver for one card can be used with equal power for another card? I assume that they have developed their own audio/midi transfer protocol, instead of using the 1394TA specs. Remember that firewire behaves pretty much like Ethernet: the data transfer protocol on the bus is pretty wel defined, both electrically as the packetization of the data. Just like voltage levels on an Ethernet bus, and raw ethernet packets are well defined by the ethernet specs. But that's about the point where the actual FireWire standard (IEEE1394ab) stops. The device manufacturer has a lot of freedom on developping their protocols that operate over the firewire bus. On Ethernet ARP, IP, ICMP, ... all use the same ethernet packets, but are different protocols. There is an organisation that has developped specs for how devices of specific categories should communicate over the FireWire bus, named 1394 Trade Association. They define protocols for addressing devices like VCR's, cameras, HD's, and also audio devices. But the use of these standards is entirely voluntary. If you don't use them, you can still conform to the basic IEEE1394 spec. I assume that RME has developped their own protocols, which they don't want to share. And frankly I can understand their point of view, because I think an awfull lot of time (=money) must have been spent to develop an efficient protocol. I don't think the specs they have for their FireFace would be feasable using the 1394TA specs for audio devices (but I can't say this for sure). To answer to your last question: If the device (completely) conforms to the specifications of the 1394TA, and the driver supports the specs completely, then this would be true. The FreeBob driver might evolve to this kind of driver in time, but the 1394TA specs are huge (more that 1000 pages alltogether, only for audio/midi devices). So the current goal for FreeBob is to support only the DM1000/BeBoB based devices that conform to the specs. This allows us to skip the implementation of those parts of the specs that aren't implemented by the DM1000/BeBoB device. The RME story also goes for the firewire interface of M-Audio. They use a DM1000 based platform, so initially we thought the device could be supported by FreeBob. But apparently they modified the reference firmware, making it (possibly) non-conformant to the 1394TA specs. As such these devices cannot be supported by FreeBob directly. Maybe if we have a working driver, we can convince the M-Audio people to share the nescessary info so that we can support their devices also. Greets, Pieter Palmers FreeBob developer
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 01:20 +0100, CK wrote: I still don't see the point, the GPL _protects_ their IP rights It only protects the source of the driver. if I was the evil corporation trying to rip off rme I could aswell rip the thing apart and reverse engineer the code and the protocol, might still be cheaper than doing the rd work. You're close. It's most expensive to do your own RD. It's a bit cheaper to reverse engineer the products. It's a lot more cheaper to just grab a GPL'd product and learn from it. That's why companies are wary of releasing GPL drivers. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 19:36, Georg Rudolph wrote: Please, let's not be too harsh. I recently bought the pcmcia based multiface from RME, only because it has linux support, and it works great, on both kernels. Of course, firewire is cooler, but there is this way out. Not for me. :) anyway it seems there a *lot* of linux audio users that bought RME because of alsa support. How about doing a list where everyone can submit his name and type of RME card so that we can see how big and attractive the market currently is? Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
I assume that RME has developped their own protocols, which they don't want to share. And frankly I can understand their point of view, because I think an awfull lot of time (=money) must have been spent to develop an efficient protocol. 1. So they haven't invested the a comparable amount of time into Hammerfall series? 2. I can only understand the point of view of open source developers here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're free as in beer/speech. That said i really don't understand the point of view of those few how actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in a similar position), no offense intended. The RME story also goes for the firewire interface of M-Audio. They use a DM1000 based platform, so initially we thought the device could be supported by FreeBob. But apparently they modified the reference firmware, making it (possibly) non-conformant to the 1394TA specs. As such these devices cannot be supported by FreeBob directly. Maybe if we have a working driver, we can convince the M-Audio people to share the nescessary info so that we can support their devices also. Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it might concern everyone in the near future. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:34:17AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it might concern everyone in the near future. How can we fight it? I've been holding off on a firewire interface, but now maybe I just won't get one...
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP 2. I can only understand the point of view of open source developers here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're free as in beer/speech. That was their choice. Right? Sure but the result is the _same_ with respect to what they deliver(state of art technology), which has the same value for me. Not the same with respect to what you get in the end.(a non-functioning device you paid a lot for, just because this and that) That said i really don't understand the point of view of those few how actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in a similar position), no offense intended. RME's position, and I am only guessing here, is that they would be happy to release info to the Open Source community __IF__ that information didn't help their competitors develop hardware that competed with RME. How? To achieve 1ms less latency? It is natural for people who have spent money to want to protect it's value. We are that way with our own purchases, correct? I (and I think you...) would not be happy if I bought something and then it stopped working, Worse. It actually never worked in my case. or if the company you bought it from stopped supporting it. Worse. They never did in my case. RME is the same way. They invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Euro's developing new hardware ideas. Hence the analogy with oss developers. They do that too without being cowards and misers. They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't make money and goes out of business. Did this happen? See how many RME cards are supported. Almost all. Perhaps all except fireface. Did someone from russia or taiwan knock-off a copy? Does RME suffer from us having alsa drivers? Are russian engineers or taiwanese engineers(envy24 btw AFAIK) not smart enough to come up with their own superb design? Is it too hard for smart people to reverse-engineer? In other words - what are you talking about? What's so hard to understand? Pretty much everything. Considering that they have used proprietary protocols in their hammerfall series anyway. Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it might concern everyone in the near future. This I agree with, but the best way to fight for it (speaking as a business man) is to develop a real market for it. We need thousands of buyers. Develop the market and hardware manufacturers will come. Perhaps it's here already. I think there's more of us RME or M-Audio customers than one might think. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:48, Tim Hockin wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:34:17AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it might concern everyone in the near future. How can we fight it? I've been holding off on a firewire interface, but now maybe I just won't get one... I'm not sure how right now. But i really think there's a lot more of use rme/maudio customers out there than we might actually think. And it's obvious that the numbers will grow. A survey might help us to figure this out.. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
sorry I'll do this at once: I read: On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote: This I agree with, but the best way to fight for it (speaking as a business man) is to develop a real market for it. We need thousands of buyers. Develop the market and hardware manufacturers will come. ouch businessmen ;) so what is a _real_ market ? the one that microsoft controls ? and because microsoft and this 'different' computer[0] company that m$ owns don't do free (as in speech) stuff ... fine Perhaps it's here already. I think there's more of us RME or M-Audio customers than one might think. I can only speak for my uni and a couple of electronic music/media art institutions and labs that bought rme products (and that's getting a couple of not so cheap devices) precisely _because_ there are linux drivers (and linux is not at all uncommon in this scene). regards, x [0] written on debian ppc -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Postmodernism is german romanticism with better http://pilot.fm/special effects. (Jeff Keuss / via ctheory.com)
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
The official statement is that there will be no support for ALSA (Linux) FireWire drivers from RME. In other words there will be no such drivers, as it is impossible to write them without tons of hardware and software documentation from RME. And we won't share these information with anyone. since complaining about this at the rme support i got the following response: FW Audio gibt es derzeit unter Alsa gar nicht. Und sehr viel von dem, was beim FF800 FW-technisch unter Windows geschieht, ist Eigenentwicklung. Wir würden also mit einem OS-ALSA-Treiber bzw. der dafür notwendigen Hardware-Dokumentation in mehrfacher Weise unserer Konkurrenz unter die Arme greifen. Bitte haben Sie Verständnis daür, daß das nicht in unserem Sinne sein kann. Es geht nicht um eine prinzipielle Abkehr von Linux. a short translation: currently there is no firewire audio support in alsa. a lot of the firewire technology for windows has been their development. it's not that they generally stop linux support... cheers ... tim -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say I want to see the manager. William S. Burroughs
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Hallo, Tim Blechmann hat gesagt: // Tim Blechmann wrote: FW Audio gibt es derzeit unter Alsa gar nicht. Und sehr viel von dem, was beim FF800 FW-technisch unter Windows geschieht, ist Eigenentwicklung. Wir würden also mit einem OS-ALSA-Treiber bzw. der dafür notwendigen Hardware-Dokumentation in mehrfacher Weise unserer Konkurrenz unter die Arme greifen. Bitte haben Sie Verständnis daür, daß das nicht in unserem Sinne sein kann. Es geht nicht um eine prinzipielle Abkehr von Linux. a short translation: currently there is no firewire audio support in alsa. a lot of the firewire technology for windows has been their development. it's not that they generally stop linux support... And to translate the missing, but IMO important part With an OS-ALSA-dirver or the needed hardware documentation we would support our competitors in several ways. Please understand, that this cannot be in our interest. So basically they want to protect their investment in getting knowledge of how to implement a powerful firewire interface from the eyes of other hardware manufacturers. It's a pity, of course, but also somehow understandable. It's still good that they were and are supportive regarding their PCI cards. This is different from a company like NVidia, which not only hides docs for their competitive 3D-cards, but also docs about network adapters and onboard soundchips. So with NVidia it's a company philosophy to not talk to open source developers at all, with RME it's just restricted to their new FW box. (Usual plug: People should stop buying NVidia stuff, but not RME cards.) Well, lets just hope, Freebob is successful, as this will generate a nice kind of pressure in the FW world in general, to which RME might bow later, too. ;) Morale of story: Always buy old hardware of about one year ago at least. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 07:53:18PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: So basically they want to protect their investment in getting knowledge of how to implement a powerful firewire interface from the eyes of other hardware manufacturers. It's a pity, of course, but also somehow understandable. Actually I find their reasoning rather weak. Since this is based on firewire, the driver would not actually be talking directly to the hardware. It is not as e.g. with PCI where a set of FPGA registers would be directly mapped and visible to the driver. With a layer like firewire in between, it should not be too difficult to actually hide all real hardware details - just use a high level of abstraction. Of course this requires more intelligence in the hardware, which is now probably at least in part in the driver. -- FA
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 20:50, Florin Andrei wrote: On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 04:22 -0500, Rick B wrote: I kind of got the impression that the annoucement was just pertaining to RME *Firewire* audio interfaces. Consider that they have released some specs for their HDSP hammerfall series, which uses a *proprietary* firewire protocol and that their latest PC products were based on IEEE1394 except one or two PCI based cards. That's what i thought. RME is no more seems a bit exagerated (although i feel for the person who bought the card thinking it's supported by the Linux drivers). I don't think it's exagerated, see explanation above. I knew exactly it wasn't at the time i bought it, i just took it for granted. I talked to Thomas Charbonnel back in april at the ZKM and it seemed that they were positive about alsa support for fireface. Anyway, beyond Linux support tribulations, the RME Fireface is a great card. I just read a review in the international Dec 2004 edition of Sound On Sound - it's really cool. It has all the things that i wish the Multiface had. I can only agree with that. But that's even worse for us then. ;) Sadly, if there's no support for Linux, i guess i won't buy it. It's not like the world ends with RME or anything. Well it's close to such situation in the linux pro-audio world. The two major players in pro-audio hw market that supported ALSA development if only indirectly by providing specs, were m-audio and... rme. Have a look at the ALSA matrix, it's a pretty sad situation. The only *real* hw manufacturer in my eyes is audioscience, they provide their own ALSA drivers(that's how it should be) but produce only broadcast cards. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 12:54:01AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: I knew exactly it wasn't at the time i bought it, i just took it for granted. I talked to Thomas Charbonnel back in april at the ZKM and it seemed that they were positive about alsa support for fireface. same for me, with the subtle difference that i didn't yet buy the thing, just almost. won't do it now. for the record, i sent a mail to rme as well and got exactly the same answer (in german) which i saw before here on this list. bests, martin
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
I read: for the record, i sent a mail to rme as well and got exactly the same answer (in german) which i saw before here on this list. I still don't see the point, the GPL _protects_ their IP rights, if I was the evil corporation trying to rip off rme I could aswell rip the thing apart and reverse engineer the code and the protocol, might still be cheaper than doing the rd work. I guess it's those strange ideas sneaking in that a) our shareholders/potential buyers won't pay for free code b) we could sell the same hardware as three different boxes with closed drivers c) what if those weird free software nerds come up with cooler stuff based on our code ? just my 0.02EUR x -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Postmodernism is german romanticism with better http://pilot.fm/special effects. (Jeff Keuss / via ctheory.com)
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 01:20:25AM +0100, CK wrote: I read: for the record, i sent a mail to rme as well and got exactly the same answer (in german) which i saw before here on this list. I still don't see the point, the GPL _protects_ their IP rights, if I was the evil corporation trying to rip off rme I could aswell rip the i completely agree. may be we should cc: the rme support with the entire thread here, but don't know whether mail bombing will change anything. bests, martin
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Hi all, The official statement is that there will be no support for RME from me. In other words I will buy no hardware or software from RME because it is impossible for me to share my hard earned money with a company that is unwilling to support my operating system of choice. But I'll certainly share my money with other companies. Any companies listening out there? Regards Jan Depner On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 19:14, Marek Peteraj wrote: Hi all, sorry for crossposting, just wanted to let everybody know: The official statement is that there will be no support for ALSA (Linux) FireWire drivers from RME. In other words there will be no such drivers, as it is impossible to write them without tons of hardware and software documentation from RME. And we won't share these information with anyone. Regards Matthias Carstens RME No further explanations. The moral of this story is: Never buy a product that isn't already supported in ALSA, such as i did. :( There's no guarantee even if pretty much every other card from the same manufacturer *is* already supported. Me and Benno talked to Matthias personally during Musikmesse, he was friendly and seemed to be open with regards to future cooperation with oss developers. Seems like things have changed dramatically since then. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 02:14:11AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: The official statement is that there will be no support for ALSA (Linux) FireWire drivers from RME. In other words there will be no such drivers, as it is impossible to write them without tons of hardware and software documentation from RME. And we won't share these information with anyone. Regards Matthias Carstens RME No further explanations. Suck. I guess I won't buy one then. Sigh. Why do companies suck so much?
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Hi all, I will also make my official statement to all sound card manufacturers. I will only buy sound cards that are fully operational with my operating system of choice - Linux. Around 6 months ago I did just this, I was in the market for a professional multichannel sound card interface for my laptop and even though the unit is much more expensive than the competition (like double the price for less features, although probably slightly better quality), I purchased an RME Hammerfall Cardbus and Multiface. I hope you are all listening to this and what this means, I am willing to pay double the price (in this case $1400 AUD more!) for a sound interface that supports Linux. If RME doesn't wish to support the development of open source drivers for their hardware, I will have to go elsewhere. Regards, Dan On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 17:57 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Hi all, The official statement is that there will be no support for RME from me. In other words I will buy no hardware or software from RME because it is impossible for me to share my hard earned money with a company that is unwilling to support my operating system of choice. But I'll certainly share my money with other companies. Any companies listening out there? Regards Jan Depner On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 19:14, Marek Peteraj wrote: Hi all, sorry for crossposting, just wanted to let everybody know: The official statement is that there will be no support for ALSA (Linux) FireWire drivers from RME. In other words there will be no such drivers, as it is impossible to write them without tons of hardware and software documentation from RME. And we won't share these information with anyone. Regards Matthias Carstens RME No further explanations. The moral of this story is: Never buy a product that isn't already supported in ALSA, such as i did. :( There's no guarantee even if pretty much every other card from the same manufacturer *is* already supported. Me and Benno talked to Matthias personally during Musikmesse, he was friendly and seemed to be open with regards to future cooperation with oss developers. Seems like things have changed dramatically since then. Marek -- Dan Harper http://danharper.org --- Enhancing the Linux desktop for desktop users --- --- http://danharper.org/linuxdesktopblog/ ---
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On tor, 2004-11-25 at 02:49 +0300, Dmitry Baikov wrote: Time to develop really open (FireWire?) audio interface, free as in speech. As you might have already noticed, free (as in freedom) designs for hardware have been discussed here lately. There is a fee for prototyping though! I believe that the consensus was that one should not use the nearmost supplier (close to Arctic Circle?) but rather the least expensive supplier (which may be in Melbourne) We are still talking a ton of dough, and an individual fronting the consequences of everybody else banging out, is risking a substantial sum of money. /j BTW: MIDI Firewire is a standard freely for sale ;-
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Maybe we should start a sooper dooper fundraising scheme like what the firefox crew did ;) On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 01:42 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote: On tor, 2004-11-25 at 02:49 +0300, Dmitry Baikov wrote: Time to develop really open (FireWire?) audio interface, free as in speech. As you might have already noticed, free (as in freedom) designs for hardware have been discussed here lately. There is a fee for prototyping though! I believe that the consensus was that one should not use the nearmost supplier (close to Arctic Circle?) but rather the least expensive supplier (which may be in Melbourne) We are still talking a ton of dough, and an individual fronting the consequences of everybody else banging out, is risking a substantial sum of money. /j BTW: MIDI Firewire is a standard freely for sale ;- -- Dan Harper http://danharper.org --- Enhancing the Linux desktop for desktop users --- --- http://danharper.org/linuxdesktopblog/ ---
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On tor, 2004-11-25 at 11:53 +1100, Dan Harper wrote: Maybe we should start a sooper dooper fundraising scheme like what the firefox crew did ;) Well, my 20¤ is here, but who would you like me to send them to?. Preferrably to someone not going to Goa next week. On the other hand, I am not at all familiar with The Firefox Crew nor what they have done. Can you elaborate on that? We are still talking a ton of dough, and an individual fronting the consequences of everybody else banging out, is risking a substantial sum of money. /j
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
The Firefox Crew is referring to the team that have recently released version 1.0 of Firefox [http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/], an Internet browser based on Mozilla [http://www.mozilla.org]. They recently rallied to fundraise money to fund a full page advertisement in the New York Times. Apparently they received around $200,000 USD in total, the left over goes to future software development efforts. [http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=node/view/4891%E2%80%9D] Now, our Linux Audio audience is a lot narrower than what a web browser would appeal to, but maybe it's a start, and with some smarts, we may surprise ourselves. Dan On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 02:23 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote: On tor, 2004-11-25 at 11:53 +1100, Dan Harper wrote: Maybe we should start a sooper dooper fundraising scheme like what the firefox crew did ;) Well, my 20¤ is here, but who would you like me to send them to?. Preferrably to someone not going to Goa next week. On the other hand, I am not at all familiar with The Firefox Crew nor what they have done. Can you elaborate on that? We are still talking a ton of dough, and an individual fronting the consequences of everybody else banging out, is risking a substantial sum of money. /j -- Dan Harper http://danharper.org --- Enhancing the Linux desktop for desktop users --- --- http://danharper.org/linuxdesktopblog/ ---
Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 02:49 +0300, Dmitry Baikov wrote: Time to develop really open (FireWire?) audio interface, free as in speech. Developing and manufacturing hardware is very different from doing the same things for software. Economic models that work for one may or may not work for the other. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
