[Ardour-Users] Ardour-Users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 18
Eric
eric at vents-sauvages.fr
Sun Jan 24 12:39:51 PST 2010
Just a few words from an amateur musician, computer scientist and former
software developer. (side note : I do not want to start a flame war with
this).
I'm quite shocked about the post of Ralph Mardorf.
As an an amateur musician, regularly involved in musical projects on a
volunteer basis (music is *not* profitable to me, it's a kind of "second
life"), I started using multitrack recording software at a time where no
free products were available (around 1992, only *very* expensive
products were existing, like SAW and the like). I was using cracked
products, which wasn't a satisfying solution regarding my thoughts on
the subject. When ardour appears it was really a gift for me. I
sometimes make small donations, because my situation do not allow me to
make more, but I always consider that this is a necessary act,
considering the price of proprietary software in the domain of digital
audio.
Aside from this, some allegations in the post of Ralph Mardorf appear to
me as completely out of subject : algorithms present in some proprietary
software that would not be present in ardour ? Which ones ? If you
consider ardour and all LADSPA plugins available (big thanks to all
developers of these plugins), what are these missing algorithms ? (oh
yes, perhaps a fully functionnal autotuner :o) ). Frankly, I can't see
such a sophisticated machinery which would be missing in ardour ....
Conclusion (temporary, as always :o) ) : this appears to me as a big
flame, or big troll, perhaps posted in a moment like the ones everybody
is facing sometimes : ArgL, why can't this software do that ?
I won't come back on Paul's answer : he told it all ... (the economic
model in which he chooses to be fully involved, ... *very* courageous !
etc etc ...).
If only I had the opportunity to do more for Ardour, I would, without a
doubt.
Well, ... another small donation tonight, I felt quite obliged :o)
Oh, I almost forgot : no, MIDI is not the urge with ardour ! You want
midi ? Try a MIDI sequencer ! (ok ok, this is a friendly flame, I only
use ardour with *real* instruments :o) ).
Long life to ardour !
Regards
Eric
(and sorry for a somewhat approximate english)
I'm quite shocked
Le dimanche 24 janvier 2010 à 09:49 -0800,
ardour-users-request at lists.ardour.org a écrit :
> Send Ardour-Users mailing list submissions to
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ardour-users-request at lists.ardour.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ardour-users-owner at lists.ardour.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ardour-Users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (John Rigg)
> 2. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (John Rigg)
> 3. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (Ralf Mardorf)
> 4. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (Paul Davis)
> 5. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (Thorsten Wilms)
> 6. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (Joe Hartley)
> 7. tax deductible Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (Ralf Mardorf)
> 8. Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released (Ralf Mardorf)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:21:04 +0000
> From: John Rigg <au at jrigg.co.uk>
> To: Ardour <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <20100124112104.GA2577 at localhost0.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:14:05PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > No doubt about it, you're a gifted coder, but I'm pissed, because of the
> > comparison to proprietary software, at least there could be packages for
> > often used distros.
>
> Considering the most recent versions of Ardour won't even compile on
> some of the current Linux distros (Debian Etch for example) that would be
> an impossible task. Besides, that's a job for the distro package maintainers,
> not the software developers.
>
> If your chosen distro doesn't have a recent enough Ardour package, perhaps
> you could volunteer to make one.
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:21:27 +0000
> From: John Rigg <au at jrigg.co.uk>
> To: Ardour <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <20100124122127.GA2532 at localhost0.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:21:04AM +0000, John Rigg wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:14:05PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > No doubt about it, you're a gifted coder, but I'm pissed, because of the
> > > comparison to proprietary software, at least there could be packages for
> > > often used distros.
> >
> > Considering the most recent versions of Ardour won't even compile on
> > some of the current Linux distros (Debian Etch for example) that would be
> > an impossible task. Besides, that's a job for the distro package maintainers,
> > not the software developers.
>
> Oops, s/Etch/Lenny
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:15:06 +0100
> From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>
> To: John Rigg <au at jrigg.co.uk>
> Cc: Ardour <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <4B5C720A.30101 at alice-dsl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> John Rigg wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:14:05PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >
> >> No doubt about it, you're a gifted coder, but I'm pissed, because of the
> >> comparison to proprietary software, at least there could be packages for
> >> often used distros.
> >>
> >
> > Considering the most recent versions of Ardour won't even compile on
> > some of the current Linux distros (Debian Etch for example) that would be
> > an impossible task. Besides, that's a job for the distro package maintainers,
> > not the software developers.
> >
> > If your chosen distro doesn't have a recent enough Ardour package, perhaps
> > you could volunteer to make one.
>
> Paul's work is important for Linux, even if I'm not using Ardour, I'm
> using JACK2. Paul uses libraries other people wrote, but he also gives
> code to the Linux community. This is something I really respect.
>
> I'm not fine with shady inquiries for donations. There's nothing wrong
> with fair inquiries for donations.
>
> Coders of proprietary software need money for their lives too, they
> aren't robbers, they need clothes, something to eat and a flat. If they
> sell their product, then they don't expect others to build packages and
> to solve dependency hell.
>
> A product like Nuendo is a complete different product, because of
> quality and quantity. Even Reaper seems to be on a higher level than
> Ardour 2.8.5 seems to be. Fraudulent representations shouldn't be used
> to ask for donations. I'm fine with comparative advertising as long as
> it isn't deceptive advertising. Btw. I never tested energyXT 2.5, it's
> for Linux and costs 49,-?.
>
> A big plus for Paul is, that he shares his code, while proprietary
> coders don't do this, OTOH proprietary software like Nuendo is build
> with bought in addition algorithms that solve a lot of issues that
> aren't solved for Ardour.
>
> It's unfair, Steinberg and other companies maintain jobs. It's okay to
> ask for donations, but the comparison is bad. You can't compare an Ural
> motorbike with a BMW motorbike. 1. BMW was before Ural and did a lot of
> research that Ural just needs to copy, 2. the quality of an Ural isn't
> comparable to the safeness a BMW secures.
>
> Taking advantage of the gratuitousness of a donation in this importunity
> is manipulative and against FLOSS.
>
> Why not simply asking for donations without making untenable comparisons
> to other software?
> Why not selling a complete solution, a package for Ardour that is
> solving all dependencies?
>
> I completely agree that 45,-US$ are a fair price for Ardour, by a
> package that does solve all dependencies. But don't forget that people
> downloading Ardour's source code often also give something back to Paul.
> They do bug reports and often do download several versions because of
> this. The amount of users, without fail, is less than the amount of
> downloads.
>
> People are willing to pay for Linux. Don't forget that if you pay for
> Nuendo, you'll get a very good printed manual, it's the same for Linux,
> if you pay for Suse, you get a printed manual too. It's not that easy
> for Steinberg or even others who get money for Linux. Perhaps a printed
> manual for Ardour should be included, when making comparisons to
> proprietary software.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
> Ralf
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:30:30 -0500
> From: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> To: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>
> Cc: Ardour <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID:
> <eb4b5e1d1001240830k21bf5435i85ce30c1943d1046 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> > Paul's work is important for Linux, even if I'm not using Ardour, I'm using
> > JACK2.
>
> I didn't write JACK2. You can thank Stephane for that, not me.
>
> > I'm not fine with shady inquiries for donations. There's nothing wrong with
> > fair inquiries for donations.
>
> Shady: there are about 5000 downloads a month by people who want
> Ardour on OS X. These people generally have no idea how much they
> should pay for software like this. And "software like this" ranges in
> cost from about $50 to over $2000. I therefore consider offering
> comparisons with existing, comparable software to be sensible.
>
> > Coders of proprietary software need money for their lives too, they aren't
> > robbers, they need clothes, something to eat and a flat. If they sell their
> > product, then they don't expect others to build packages and to solve
> > dependency hell.
>
> I regularly defend the rights of proprietary software developers to do
> what they do, and honestly believe that. I think that the open source
> model leads to better software, in the long run, although it makes the
> economics of development quite a bit harder.
>
> > A product like Nuendo is a complete different product, because of quality
> > and quantity. Even Reaper seems to be on a higher level than Ardour 2.8.5
> > seems to be. Fraudulent representations shouldn't be used to ask for
> > donations.
>
> If you are calling my comparisons with other software fraudulent then
> you can go to hell.
>
> The first times I tried to run Logic, Cubase and Samplitude, they all
> crashed several times in the first hour of use. Reaper doesn't do half
> the stuff that Logic can do, it doesn't even do some of the stuff
> Ardour can do. These are all programs that do the same "general" kind
> of thing. Some do particular aspects of it better than others. Some
> have particular functionality that others don't have.
>
> > deceptive advertising. Btw. I never tested energyXT 2.5, it's for Linux and
> > costs 49,-?.
>
> and is incapable of doing the primary tasks that Ardour is designed
> for in a reliable and efficient way. its still cool software.
>
> > Taking advantage of the gratuitousness of a donation in this importunity is
> > manipulative and against FLOSS.
>
> Anybody can get Ardour without paying a penny for it. If they want me
> to continue working on it, then they'd better pay *something*. They
> can pay $1, and that still counts (in fact, if everyone who downloaded
> it paid a dollar for it I'd probably be hiring). Access to software:
> FREE Continued development of software: NOT FREE. Users can decide.
>
> You don't Ardour can stand the comparison to Reaper or Nuendo or Logic
> or Samplitude - that's fine. You're welcome to say so. Others don't
> agree with you.
>
> > I completely agree that 45,-US$ are a fair price for Ardour, by a package
>
> That isn't the price. There is no fixed price. Do you not recognize a
> text entry box when you see it?
>
> And I didn't even call you names. Aren't I nice?
>
> --p
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:35:52 +0100
> From: Thorsten Wilms <t_w_ at freenet.de>
> To: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <1264350952.2379.92.camel at charly>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 17:15 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > A product like Nuendo is a complete different product, because of
> > quality and quantity. Even Reaper seems to be on a higher level than
> > Ardour 2.8.5 seems to be. Fraudulent representations shouldn't be used
> > to ask for donations. I'm fine with comparative advertising as long as
> > it isn't deceptive advertising. Btw. I never tested energyXT 2.5, it's
> > for Linux and costs 49,-?.
>
> Whether or not Ardour can stand its ground in a direct comparison to one
> of the mentioned apps is very much open to debate (there are whole
> blocks of functionality present there that Ardour doesn't have, but it
> depends on the use case and personal workflow in how far that matters).
>
> But the scrolling text starts with "Some indicative pricing ..."
> It says nothing like: Ardour is as good as Nuendo. It's just a list of
> prices offered to provide context.
>
> Your lack of understanding is really hurtful in my perception. You
> should be more careful with terms like "shady".
>
>
> --
> Thorsten Wilms
>
> thorwil's design for free software:
> http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:43:49 -0500
> From: Joe Hartley <jh at brainiac.com>
> To: Ardour <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <20100124114349.33d5b5b7.jh at brainiac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:30:30 -0500
> Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> > Anybody can get Ardour without paying a penny for it. If they want me
> > to continue working on it, then they'd better pay *something*. They
> > can pay $1, and that still counts (in fact, if everyone who downloaded
> > it paid a dollar for it I'd probably be hiring). Access to software:
> > FREE Continued development of software: NOT FREE. Users can decide.
>
> I ignored the original rant, because anyone can have a bad day and get
> their knickers in a twist. If you go back far enough, one of my original
> posts to this list was a whiny rant that was spurred by a problem I was
> having with an early release.
>
> But I feel I need to stand up and point to the above paragraph and say
> "THIS." Ardour's one of the best pieces of audio software I've ever used,
> and I'm amazed at the accessibility of the developers. I'm more than
> happy to have a subscription through the website so that development can
> continue.
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh at brainiac.com
> Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:37:33 +0100
> From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>
> To: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> Cc: Ardour <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
> Subject: [Ardour-Users] tax deductible Re: Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <4B5C855D.9000707 at alice-dsl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Paul Davis wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> > <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul's work is important for Linux, even if I'm not using Ardour, I'm using
> >> JACK2.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't write JACK2. You can thank Stephane for that, not me.
> >
>
> I know that, but anyway you paved the way. So you should earn respect.
>
> spinymouse-sudo at 64studio:~$ jackd -v
> jackdmp 1.9.3
> Copyright 2001-2005 Paul Davis and others.
> Copyright 2004-2009 Grame.
>
> >> I'm not fine with shady inquiries for donations. There's nothing wrong with
> >> fair inquiries for donations.
> >>
> >
> > Shady: there are about 5000 downloads a month by people who want
> > Ardour on OS X. These people generally have no idea how much they
> > should pay for software like this. And "software like this" ranges in
> > cost from about $50 to over $2000. I therefore consider offering
> > comparisons with existing, comparable software to be sensible.
> >
>
> There's nothing wrong with asking for 45,-US$, but your comparison isn't
> correct. 2000US$ software comes with algorithm Linux is missing, printed
> manuals and a guarantee. How many of those 5000 downloads are users, how
> many of those downloads are testers?
>
> > I think that the open source
> > model leads to better software, in the long run, although it makes the
> > economics of development quite a bit harder.
> >
>
> Full ACK.
>
> > If you are calling my comparisons with other software fraudulent then
> > you can go to hell.
> >
>
> To still, let me call it "rash".
>
> > The first times I tried to run Logic, Cubase and Samplitude, they all
> > crashed several times in the first hour of use.
>
> Cracks or original software? On an audio machine or on a Machine with
> Microsoft office suit drivers?
>
> > You don't Ardour can stand the comparison to Reaper or Nuendo or Logic
> > or Samplitude - that's fine. You're welcome to say so. Others don't
> > agree with you.
> >
>
> And others do agree with me. I don't use Ardour, but I tried to use it
> and I can compare it to Reaper, Cubase (not Nuendo, but on good
> authority I know that it's better than Cubase), Logic and Pro Tools. I
> also can compare it to Rosegarden and Qtractor and some other software.
> There's nothing wrong with Ardour, but comparison to 2000,-$ software is
> "rash" (on German "un?berlegt, unbedacht").
>
> If people do agree with this, than you don't need to do such comparison.
>
> >> I completely agree that 45,-US$ are a fair price for Ardour, by a package
> >>
> >
> > That isn't the price. There is no fixed price. Do you not recognize a
> > text entry box when you see it?
> >
> > And I didn't even call you names. Aren't I nice?
> >
>
> There at least is this recommendation and a special 2 step form. Why
> this advice that you didn't even call me names ;)?
>
> People writing proprietary software do this, because they need a job to
> survive. Asking for donations is a good thing to do. I only question
> your way.
>
> Why don't you sell Ardour for instead 2000,-$ like proprietary companies
> sell their products, for 900,-$ by a bundle with manuals in different
> languages and dependency support for Linux, you nevertheless could share
> the source for free, but give a bundle that is comparable to proprietary
> software. If Ardour is comparable this would be a more than fair price
> and if even 5 of 5000 people just for Mac would pay for it, you should
> get enough money by such a bundle. Dunno, but 5 x 900,- = 4500,-, okay,
> let's they it should be 10 or 20 users from that 5000 users each month,
> after paying the printing and duties etc. all your problems should be
> solved.
>
> There are 1000th of cracks on the market for those software that
> shouldn't be better than Ardour, but anyway those companies give work to
> many coders, because enough people are willing to pay for the software.
> Especially professional studios don't use cracks, but pay and if Ardour
> should be good enough, they will pay for it too.
>
> *It is tax deductible for professional studios and they would pay for an
> Ardour that is comparable to Pro Tools, Samplitude, Nuendo*. Why don't
> you go this way?
>
> Enough said by me.
>
> It shouldn't be an assault. Especially the tax deductible for
> professional studios isn't an assault, but a hint. This is the way how
> proprietary companies work. All the kids are using cracks, but studios
> pay a lot of money, when the quality is good. If Ardour's quality is
> comparable, than there shouldn't be a problem to sell Ardour.
>
> Hth,
> Ralf
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:43:48 +0100
> From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>
> To: t_w_ at freenet.de
> Cc: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8.5 released
> Message-ID: <4B5C86D4.6020901 at alice-dsl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 17:15 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >
> >
> >> A product like Nuendo is a complete different product, because of
> >> quality and quantity. Even Reaper seems to be on a higher level than
> >> Ardour 2.8.5 seems to be. Fraudulent representations shouldn't be used
> >> to ask for donations. I'm fine with comparative advertising as long as
> >> it isn't deceptive advertising. Btw. I never tested energyXT 2.5, it's
> >> for Linux and costs 49,-?.
> >>
> >
> > Whether or not Ardour can stand its ground in a direct comparison to one
> > of the mentioned apps is very much open to debate (there are whole
> > blocks of functionality present there that Ardour doesn't have, but it
> > depends on the use case and personal workflow in how far that matters).
> >
> > But the scrolling text starts with "Some indicative pricing ..."
> > It says nothing like: Ardour is as good as Nuendo. It's just a list of
> > prices offered to provide context.
> >
> > Your lack of understanding is really hurtful in my perception. You
> > should be more careful with terms like "shady".
> >
>
> Sorry for that.
>
> As I've written before:
>
> "*It is tax deductible for professional studios and they would pay for
> an Ardour that is comparable to Pro Tools, Samplitude, Nuendo*. Why
> don't you go this way?
>
> Enough said by me.
>
> It shouldn't be an assault. Especially the tax deductible for
> professional studios isn't an assault, but a hint. This is the way how
> proprietary companies work. All the kids are using cracks, but studios
> pay a lot of money, when the quality is good. If Ardour's quality is
> comparable, than there shouldn't be a problem to sell Ardour."
>
> I guess that way Paul should get the money he needs.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ardour-Users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
>
>
> End of Ardour-Users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 18
> ********************************************
--
http://www.vents-sauvages.fr/
More information about the Ardour-Users
mailing list