Making Music with FOSS

Ralf ralf.mardorf at
Mon Apr 25 22:11:05 UTC 2011

On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 23:14 +0200, Hartmut Noack wrote:
> *Every* given website should use formats available to eveybody on any 
> computer for stuff as simple as audio/video.
> It is extra-crude of course, if somebody talks about free software and 
> tries to do so using formats that are not natively available on a Linux-PC.

IMO codecs should be lossless too, so FLAC might be ok, OTOH the
internet isn't fast all the times ;).

What you and I guess has less to do with consumption.
It's a business to sell PCs + accessories.

Hm? Video codecs for the C64? Atari ST?

There's business and if the Internet can be used with Windows and Apple
it's ok for this capitalistic planet.

The target group of this webcast might not have FLOSS codecs ;).

> Please Ralf, could you elborate on that? You cannot use Ardour as an 
> "Apple plugin host on Linux" and there is no such thing. Ardour 
> *compiled for MacOSX* can host Audio Unit plugins - as it runs under MacOSX.

I didn't know this, I just read the article's paragraph about Ardour and
I wondered about this AND I don't agree with Ruth.

> > not a full version of Ardour for Linux?
> Everybody who wants to know, knows, that Ardour for Linux is free as in 
> beer also as it is available as a native package for most distros.
> There is a special offering from for users of MacOSX, that do 
> not want to take the complicated task of compiling Ardour on the Mac 
> from source. It is a ready-to-run binary for MacOSX. If you want this, 
> you need to make a donation (that is 1:1 in compliance with the GPL, we 
> talk about a fee for a special comfort/service in the distribution of a 
> software, not about any proprietary licensing).
> Whoever wants ardour without payment for MacOSX, can still download a 
> binary. This one will deliberately fail to save settings for AU-plugins.
> And everybody on the Mac who wants everything whithout spending any 
> money is still welcome to download and compile the source-codes, that 
> are of course available for everybody without any registration, pop-ups 
> or anything:
> svn co
> >
> > Perhaps it's not about Linux, FLOSS is for Windows and Mac too and if
> > this kind of open source community is using MacOs and Windows, beside
> > e.g. RedHat Linux and .arf should be a common format there, why
> > shouldn't they use it?
> Because, if I want to distribute something, accessability for as many 
> users as possible is priority No1.

Yes, and Linux users are a minority.
Microsoft and Apple are used by the masses + 100 of illegal installed
application they never ever do need.

I do agree with you, but I also do understand that people don't care
about Linux users who won't install proprietary stuff.

> > Regarding to this, I'm just pissed about the
> > 'everything is better using FLOSS, but proprietary stuff' attitude, by
> > people who don't use FLOSS stuff only. Private I do use FLOSS only,
> > excepted of the graphics driver and similar, but for making music FLOSS
> > is far away of being just nearly as good as proprietary software,
> > regarding to technical issues
> It depends on what you want to do with it. Everything, that works the 
> way you want for the things you want to do, is perfect. ProTools can do 
> many things, you cannot do in Ardour but if you do not need these 
> things, this is irrelevant.

This is what I mean with the difference between consumers and producers.
You also must be able to work quick and to be able to restore a
production without any issue.


More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list