Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"...

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Renato <rennabh@...>
Cc: Kim Cascone <kim@...>, <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2011 - 6:24 pm

--bcaec52e62b51decf0049dac43be
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Renato wrote:

They are directly related to each other. If Linux is not friendly, Linux
Audio will not be friendly.

> I allready stated more or less this, but I'd like to say it again, in

Here is the thing, Time IS Money. One way or another, time invested in
systems and software means time not spent making money, or even money spent
learning these things. This ties directly into my next response which I
will cover in a moment...

However to go off on a tangent, I am going to pick on your response, which I
see as more of a knee-jerk response than anything. Are you really saying
what you typed, they you would RATHER have to manually set up everything
about your system, rather than have it set up correctly and be able to
infinetely tweak, but only if you want to? Because a system is user
friendly, doesn't necessarily mean that it is not powerful, and that is
something I think many people miss. OS X is a user friendly system yes, and
they did it by limiting the ability to tweak it. Does that necessarily HAVE
to happen? I don't think nearly to the extent that Mac did it, they did it
specifically to limit and keep people from being able to screw up the
system. But that doesn't mean it needs to happen to have a user friendly
system.

However the response of, "I don't want a user friendly system" just doesn't
hold water for me. If that is the case, I certainly hope you enjoy building
your system from LFS every time. In your case, and in most cases, I suspect
it isn't "I don't want a user friendly system" as much as "I don't want a
system that limits my choice in favor of user friendliness", which is
something very different.

> The way I feel is that we really shouln't invest too much time and

The question raised by this thread back when it started was how to compete
with the now defunct Pro Tools LE in a professional environment better.
These are exactly the people that will be most affected by the loss of PTLE
and the ones specifically targetted by the originators of the thread, these
people that don't want to spend already precious time and money dealing with
what could be a much simpler system.

What does the community gain by this? Acceptance, if that. In truth it is
a question of how much that is worth to you. To some people it is worth
more, as it means admittance that Linux Audio has reached a certain point,
that it has at least that much quality to it.

But some people want to evangelize that there IS choice out there, and that
by itself is enough of a gain for many people.

Seablade

--bcaec52e62b51decf0049dac43be
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Renato <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><rennabh@gmail.com=
> wrote:=A0

I think we're leaving the "how linux audio could be more user frie=
ndly"
topic in favor of the "how linux could be more user friendly" - w=
hich
is not bad, just saying.

They are directly related to each other. =
=A0If Linux is not friendly, Linux Audio will not be friendly.=
=A0
I allready stated more or less this, but I'd like to say it again, in
other words. If I wanted a user friendly OS, I wouldn't be using linux,=

but probably OSX. There's a monetary cost for that, but OTOH linux and<=
br>
more in general open source software involves a larger "time" cos=
t,
time spent reading documentation etc. There's a tradeoff there.

I think many people here, like me, prefer to invest time in open source
software rather than money AND time (though less) in closed source
software.

Here is the thing, Time IS Money. =A0One w=
ay or another, time invested in systems and software means time not spent m=
aking money, or even money spent learning these things. =A0This ties direct=
ly into my next response which I will cover in a moment...
However to go off on a tangent, I am going to pick on y=
our response, which I see as more of a knee-jerk response than anything. =
=A0Are you really saying what you typed, they you would RATHER have to manu=
ally set up everything about your system, rather than have it set up correc=
tly and be able to infinetely tweak, but only if you want to? =A0Because a =
system is user friendly, doesn't necessarily mean that it is not powerf=
ul, and that is something I think many people miss. =A0OS X is a user frien=
dly system yes, and they did it by limiting the ability to tweak it. =A0Doe=
s that necessarily HAVE to happen? =A0I don't think nearly to the exten=
t that Mac did it, they did it specifically to limit and keep people from b=
eing able to screw up the system. =A0But that doesn't mean it needs to =
happen to have a user friendly system.
However the response of, "I don't want a user =
friendly system" just doesn't hold water for me. =A0If that is the=
case, I certainly hope you enjoy building your system from LFS every time.=
=A0In your case, and in most cases, I suspect it isn't "I don&#39=
;t want a user friendly system" as much as "I don't want a sy=
stem that limits my choice in favor of user friendliness", which is so=
mething very different.
=A0The way I feel is that we rea=
lly shouln't invest too much time and
energy with users who won't learn how to do such an easy thing as using=

a terminal (just google "linux using terminal").

What does the community gain in having such people use linux?
The question raised by this thread b=
ack when it started was how to compete with the now defunct Pro Tools LE in=
a professional environment better. =A0These are exactly the people that wi=
ll be most affected by the loss of PTLE and the ones specifically targetted=
by the originators of the thread, these people that don't want to spen=
d already precious time and money dealing with what could be a much simpler=
system.
What does the community gain by this? =A0Acceptan=
ce, if that. =A0In truth it is a question of how much that is worth to you.=
=A0To some people it is worth more, as it means admittance that Linux Audi=
o has reached a certain point, that it has at least that much quality to it=
.
But some people want to evangelize that there IS choice=
out there, and that by itself is enough of a gain for many people.=A0 =A0 =A0Seablade

--bcaec52e62b51decf0049dac43be--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 4:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Andrew C, (Fri Mar 4, 5:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 5:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 6:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 6:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 7:00 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 7:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., david, (Sat Mar 5, 6:06 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 2:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 5:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Joe Hartley, (Sat Mar 5, 6:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 7:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 6:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 5:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 5:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 6:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 6:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 7:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 6:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 6:55 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., rosea.grammostola, (Sat Mar 5, 3:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Robin Gareus, (Sat Mar 5, 2:00 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 7:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:10 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 6:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 7:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 7:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 7:06 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Robin Gareus, (Sat Mar 5, 1:58 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Robin Gareus, (Sat Mar 5, 2:14 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 8:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., david, (Sat Mar 5, 6:13 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., david, (Fri Mar 4, 7:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:49 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Fri Mar 4, 9:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., S C Rigler, (Fri Mar 4, 4:46 pm)