This is the perspective of an EE educated, amateur musician/producer/"project studio" guy, Unix-literate, mostly Mac-using, Linux noob who just installed Ubuntu on a new HP mini 10. I have been reading this list trying to get a feel for the state of Linux audio and to see if I might try Ubuntu Studio on my next DAW - which will be a PC (not the HP mini!) after years of using a Mac in the studio.
I don't know how many other folks like me there are on this list, but I offer my opinions for what they are worth. One of the things that draws me to Linux is the ability to interact with and customize your system to a high degree. Unix is my favorite OS (though my experience is only as a user, and that years ago), and having unix+gui on my home computer is pretty ideal (technical distinctions between Linux and Unix aside). However, like most people I suspect, my time for music and computers is very limited. In particular, I don't want to spend time trying to get my DAW to work if I can avoid it - learning how to use it, even learning the OS and how it interacts with the DAW - great - but not troubleshooting and debugging and throwing stuff against the wall. I am amazed that Ubuntu Studio - and apps like Ardour, etc. - even exist. Its a testament to the creative and generous spirit of humankind. It also appears rather tenuous due to the selfish, or at least self-interested spirit in all of us as well. The Linux haters I've run into are quick to point out that if you want something to work - especially something as complicated as a pro audio DAW system - you have to pay for it - and you get what you pay for, blah blah. I think this has been proven at least partially untrue by the Linux audio community on one hand, and yet on the other hand this same community bears out the truth in that statement as well. Cory's comments in the original post of this thread exemplify this very well I think. So, to get back on track, what is most attractive to me as a potential Ubuntu Studio user (and possible contributor, if I learn enough to make any useful contribution) is a lean, mean DAW machine, as described below and by others in this thread. I think most serious DAW users have a computer dedicated as a DAW (no matter what OS they use) and have other machines for email, web, games, whatever. The big challenge with Windows and Mac is getting all the crap off the machine, and disabling all the OS bloat to maximize DAW performance - and even then, there is so much unnecessary (for audio production) overhead built into the OS. Seems to me that the major "selling point" of a Linux audio distro would be "bloat-freeness". I was surprised when I started researching Linux for audio to find out about the superiority of the RT kernel compared to Windows/Mac - that and the fact that the software is free are just bonuses. But the main thing to me would be its simple (compared to commercial OSes), efficient, and it works. Especially that last part. :-) I have spent countless hours debugging SW and HW on my Mac DAW, and to this day have stuff that doesn't work. I believe that's in large part because even on Mac - despite Apple's advertising - audio is little more than an afterthought. Ubuntu Studio could be like the SW component of a dedicated HW DAW, except that the dedicated HW is not an expensive, custom machine made in small quantities, but the ubiquitous PC. That's the best of both worlds, IMO. I realize Ubuntu Studio is *not* intended to be an audio-only distro. Maybe that's part of the tension in future direction. Maybe a "studio" distro for audio, video, graphic design, whatever, is still too broad. How many people are seriously involved in all of those things? Some to be sure, but probably a minority compared to the number who focus primarily on just one. I'm not suggesting Ubuntu Studio ditch everything but audio - as Cory said, its direction/content will be determined by the people who actually make it. But what I personally would be drawn to is a dedicated pro-audio distro. I don't expect such a thing, especially for free. I expect I will plug my nose and install Windows, and use SONAR and other commercial apps. But man if there ever were an audio-specific Linux distro, I would be very interested - even enough to spend a couple hours here and there trying to contribute. :-) My $0.02. Happy Easter to my fellow Christians! ld On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 04:31 -0500, Glenn Holmer wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 12:42 +0400, alex stone wrote: > > No games, no pulse, no extra players, utilities, skype, or anything > > else that isn't absolutely essential to a dedicated audio/video distro > > for making music and images. > > > > Give the user the option to include what they want from main repos, > > but refer them to the main repos if something goes wrong with their > > "extras". > > In these halycon days of multiboot, cross-platform options, UBS > > doesn't have to include all the rest of the crap. It can stick with > > excellence, and performance, and let the user reboot if he or she > > wants something outside of a pure DAW environment. > > +1 > > -- > "After the vintage season came the aftermath - and Cenbe." > Glenn Holmer (Q-Link: ShadowM) http://www.lyonlabs.org > > > -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
