[Ardour-Users] Ardour-Users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 18
Mark Greenwood
fatgerman at ntlworld.com
Sun Jan 24 12:55:02 PST 2010
On Sunday 24 Jan 2010 20:39:51 Eric wrote:
> 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.
Eric,
Ralf is always doing this. It's best to just ignore him.
Mark
>
> 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".
> >
> >
> > > 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 $1, and that still counts (in fact, if everyone who downloaded
> > > it paid a dollar for it I'd probably be hiring). Access to software:
> > > FREE Continued development of software: NOT FREE. Users can decide.
> >
> > I ignored the original rant, because anyone can have a bad day and get
> > their knickers in a twist. If you go back far enough, one of my original
> > posts to this list was a whiny rant that was spurred by a problem I was
> > having with an early release.
> >
> > But I feel I need to stand up and point to the above paragraph and say
> > "THIS." Ardour's one of the best pieces of audio software I've ever used,
> > and I'm amazed at the accessibility of the developers. I'm more than
> > happy to have a subscription through the website so that development can
> > continue.
> >
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> > > <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paul's work is important for Linux, even if I'm not using Ardour, I'm using
> > >> JACK2.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I didn't write JACK2. You can thank Stephane for that, not me.
> > >
> >
> > I know that, but anyway you paved the way. So you should earn respect.
> >
> > spinymouse-sudo at 64studio:~$ 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
> > ********************************************
>
>
>
More information about the Ardour-Users
mailing list