LinuxMusicians

fakebake wrote:Also, a quite serious guy told me he knew one of the first ableton live developpers and that ableton live was first developped for linux.

And what told us this? Well, Linux, (and therewith Open Source) isn't the way to go, if you would generate some money.
The MOD is one of those companies who stay up to break this rule.
Maybe not a standard today, but, a Step onto the future!
On top, it will negate your question about "Differences between the individual operating systems", as simply, there isn't any if you use a MOD.

https://www.moddevices.com/products/mod-duo-x
:like's:
MOD: building a sustainable Linux Audio based business
https://media.ccc.de/v/lac2018-102-mod_ ... d_business

khz wrote:THX && :welcome:

##

10.) "Standard of industry" software - fortuitously snapshot: from all three websites/surveys (1, 2, 3) the first 2 DAW's selected.

• OSX - Ableton Live, Apple Logic Pro, Cockos Reaper, PreSonus Studio One, Steinberg Cubase
• Win - Ableton Live, Cockos Reaper, PreSonus Studio One, Steinberg Cubase
• Lin - Cockos Reaper

# OK?
# <Further suggestions/sources are welcome.>

Protools

fakebake wrote: Also, a quite serious guy told me he knew one of the first ableton live developpers and that ableton live was first developped for linux.

Not sure I believe that. Robert Henke was the founder, I don't know how much actual development he put in to it but he and the team seemed very windows focused at the beginning. Perhaps the linux aspect came from the guy who branched off to make bitwig (Dom was it?) but when he was working for ableton and was involved in support it never seemed like he was that deeply involved and was never listed a main developer.

sysrqer wrote:Protools

I think official polls are quite good to create a ~neutral list. Evidentiary/source information would be good to avoid a dispute.

But that's just my opinion. IMHO I am completely open to everything (useful).

khz wrote:

sysrqer wrote:Protools

I think official polls are quite good to create a ~neutral list. Evidentiary/source information would be good to avoid a dispute.

But that's just my opinion. IMHO I am completely open to everything (useful).

They are user polls, not evidence of industry standards. Look at the first one, there is no way on earth that there are 3 times as many professionals using ardour as there protools. Go to YouTube and watch videos of renowned producers like Dave Pensado and nearly always they are using protools, it has always been THE industry standard.

sysrqer wrote: They are user polls, not evidence of industry standards. Look at the first one, there is no way on earth that there are 3 times as many professionals using ardour as there protools. Go to YouTube and watch videos of renowned producers like Dave Pensado and nearly always they are using protools, it has always been THE industry standard.

That's right. These are surveys where "normal" users have answered.
Professional users are unlikely to participate in such surveys.
Protools is an important program for professional users.

If necessary, omit point 10 completely. This is quite complicated to reflect a neutral, realistic result in the list.
Hmmm.

khz wrote:Thank you very much!
Recording that.
Is LSP and foobar2000 an own plugin format like LADSPA, DSSI, Vamp, LV2, VST, AU, AAX, RTAS?
I'll leave that out for now. If it is a format of its own, I will of course include it. This is about the different plugin formats. Meta level.

EDIT: Maybe LSP and foobar2000 fits better into "Linux Plugins (LADSPA, DSSI, Vamp, LV2, VST)" >> viewtopic.php?f=48&t=18663

agree LSP is more a plugin collection than plugin format, it was just the standalone option that was outside the usual formats

Foobar2000 was non-serious suggestion for category 11
was a great audio multi-tool for me on windows for over a decade.
I still run it in wine for replaygain scanning music files, but even that won't be needed when i get time to rescan everything in Linux
just me being silly and it shouldn't be on list

sadko4u wrote:

khz wrote:Is LSP and foobar2000 an own plugin format like LADSPA, DSSI, Vamp, LV2, VST, AU, AAX, RTAS?

LSP plugins internally have their own common interface which is simply adopted to JACK, LADSPA, LV2 and VST by a thin layer of wrappers.
Standalone (JACK) version has additional benifit: is very easy to debug and develop, there is no need of any LADSPA/LV2/VST host.

khz wrote:So LSP is an own plugin format? I'll put it on the list. If I misunderstood, please correct me.

nikgnomicradio wrote:agree LSP is more a plugin collection than plugin format, it was just the standalone option that was outside the usual formats

Now I'm insecure again. Is it a plugin format or not?

khz wrote: Now I'm insecure again. Is it a plugin format or not?

No, it's the usual formats as a plugin and a standalone/jack version.

Ah OK. THX! Now it is again understandable to me. Computers are complex.

For #3 (no unneeded services), unfortunately this is not always the case with Linux.
Windows is definately not good for this, and Linux often seems to do better than Linuxes, but it depends upon which Linux you use, which version, and how it was configured and installed.

I routinely test out a variety of Linux distros, and unfortunately I find that a lot of them include unneeded services, widgets, programs, games, icons, themes, too many fonts, and also some unwanted system defaults. Even many of my favorite distros come with way too much stuff. Right now I'm on a more minimal distro than before, and the install .ISO was 1-2 GiB smaller than what I used to use, for example.

@minimal,_individual_distribution: fullack

And hopefully uninstall everything Linux would make as comfortable as Win/MacOs?

Or better you never installed it because you paid attention to minimal, individual distribution before.

sysrqer wrote:Linux fails in this area in comparison because of the very nature of it. That's not to say it fails altogether though, only as a comparison.

This is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard in my entire life, I swear. There's no specific “nature” to prevent hardware working with Linux kernel; that is entirely not a Linux fault. The reason behind lack of support of certain hardware is manufacturers' decision not to make Linux drivers. Do you really think that Microsoft develops all the drivers for Windows, and Apple does the same for Mac OS/OSX? That's plainly impossible, no company in the world has enough resources to develop drivers for all the hardware they don't even make. Device manufacturers provide the original drivers, not the OS or its kernel. To blame Linux for not supporting some piece of hardware is against common sense. It's not like the kernel or its devs owe you anything. In fact, most of currently supported hardware works because some third party had invested a huge amount of time and money into reverse engineering, or because some manufacturers are sane enough to make class compliant devices (Presonus as an example). One of the very few companies developing their own full featured Linux drivers is HP. But other companies ignore the fact Linux does even exist, or rely on the community instead. AMD, for instance, does both rely on people and work on their own drivers, providing a universal kernel to driver interface for their GPUs and full hardware specs, as well as the proprietary driver, which is easily and seamlessly replaced with a community developed one.

AlexTheBassist wrote:

sysrqer wrote:Linux fails in this area in comparison because of the very nature of it. That's not to say it fails altogether though, only as a comparison.

This is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard in my entire life, I swear. There's no specific “nature” to prevent hardware working with Linux kernel; that is entirely not a Linux fault. The reason behind lack of support of certain hardware is manufacturers' decision not to make Linux drivers. Do you really think that Microsoft develops all the drivers for Windows, and Apple does the same for Mac OS/OSX? That's plainly impossible, no company in the world has enough resources to develop drivers for all the hardware they don't even make. Device manufacturers provide the original drivers, not the OS or its kernel.

I never suggested that anything in linux prevents hardware working, but the fact is, as you have just explained, some companies don't provide a driver for it and therefore some hardware will work in Windows and not Linux. Lay blame on whoever you want, it's irrelevant really, the objective reality is that you can buy a piece of hardware that won't work in linux, simple as that. Not sure what is 'bullshit' about that, it is a difference between operating systems, for whatever the reason behind it.