Do any serious music enthusiasts use Linux?

[Linuxmusician01]

As a result of some recent questions and discussions here I was wondering if Linux is even used by serious amateurs or enthusiasts for music production?

I see people asking general music questions to which the solution is something like: "Don't connect an input to an input, always connect IN to OUT". Or: "Wow, you can use a monophonic synth that also behaves like a Midi keyboard to play polyphonic notes on a computer". Those have nothing to do with Linux (or Windows or Apple) but with general music and music hardware knowledge.

However, I see (newcomers) ask little specific computer/Linux music questions like "How do I bloody use Jack?" or "What's the difference between Linux VST and Windows VST? And why won't it bloody work out of the box?". I would expect experienced musicians or DAW users to ask such questions.

So do serious amateur musicians or home producers even use Linux? Could the problem be:

1. Only people who fiddle with computers out of boredom install Linux and therefore little serious musicians use Linux?
2. The most popular DAW's aren't available in a "real" Linux native version?
3. DAW's that are available in Linux aren't popular enough?
4. DAW's that are available in Linux aren't stable enough?

I want to skip the discussion that Audio/Music on Linux is difficult. Because that's what this forum is for! I just see little newcomers ask specific computer or Linux questions. They ask more general music questions as if they've never made music or music on a computer before.

[Basslint]

Only people who fiddle with computers out of boredom install Linux and therefore little serious musicians use Linux?

GNU/Linux is used by most Big Tech companies, including Microsoft which uses it for Azure. Guess not!

The most popular DAW's aren't available in a "real" Linux native version?

The most popular probably not but widely used DAWs like Bitwig Studio, Tracktion Waveform and REAPER. So the fact the many popular ones (FL Studio, Ableton Live, Cakewalk, ACID Pro, Cubase, Pro Tools, Reason, Logic Pro) don't run natively surely matters but if one really wants to make music on GNU/Linux, it isn't like there aren't valid alternatives, FLOSS or not.

DAW's that are available in Linux aren't popular enough?

Probably so, but I think this is due to piracy which allows some expensive programs to be popular even among people on a budget.

DAW's that are available in Linux aren't stable enough?

I don't think it's the case. They are stable enough to finish tracks, the result prove it.

I think the case is not much different than general adoption of GNU/Linux: computers mostly come with Windows installed, installing distros can be a hassle, sometimes hardware does not work properly (not GNU/Linux' fault, of course), VSTs often don't have native Linux versions (and some users might find installing yabridge difficult), people use Windows for other programs which do not have a counterpart, there is no widespread awareness of privacy and software freedom issues, etc.

[Gps]

I think its a problem, there is no Cubase, Fruityloops or Albeton for Linux.

I have even heard of producers switching daw, so they would be using the same program as their fiends.

Not sure I could afford Cubase for Linux though, 579 euro for Cubase 12 pro.

Cubase Artist 12, 329 euro.

Cubase Elements 12, 99 euro.

Cubase has some sentimental value for me , because I once hooked up an Atari ST with Cubase to a Yamaha DX 7.

The only person I know off, on Linux, is Unfa,

[folderol]

I know of several. However none post here - they're too busy

[tavasti]

I know of several. However none post here - they're too busy

Sure that is the way on everything. Real makers aren't hanging on forums, facebook groups, irc, discord, they are working what they can best.

[Largos]

From a user point of view, it doesn't really matter whether other people use it, the question is "can I use it?"

[kamiluni]

I use Linux seriously for Music, Video editing and for others technical jobs, without regrets or compromises.
I can confirm that with tools available on Linux you can produce professionally great music (and other things)!
In other words: if you learn to use Linux and its tools seriously, you can make music seriously.
I agree with you, 20 years ago the scenario was different, but nowadays if your ability to produce music depends on specific tools, the issues are not the tools available on Linux...

KL

[bluzee]

The big production companies that use Linux would write their own software in house.

[j_e_f_f_g]

Pro musicians go where the pro music hardware/software is supported.

And that ain't linux.

It can be a chicken and egg syndrome. Pro music hardware/software makers aren't supporting linux because their customers aren't using it. And their customers aren't using linux because the pro music hardware/software makers aren't supporting it.

How do you overcome that? It's simple really. Microsoft was the first computer company to get it right, and Ballmer summed it up with the phrase "Developers, developers, developers!". Of course, MS's target manufacturer base was software devs. A more generic motto would be "Manufacturers, manufacturers, manufacturers." Gates and Ballmer figured out that you sell a platform not to the endusers first, but rather, the companies that support the platform. Once the manufacturers get onboard, the endusers will follow. MS therefore put a priority on making sure that developers got the best support possible, and that computer sellers had an incentive to load MS software upon their systems. All the endusers came after that happened.

So how do you do this in practice? You give hardware/software makers a compelling advantage/feature to entice them into thinking that they could gain an advantage over their competitors. And then you remind them that the first person to market usually becomes the rich guy, and the ones who take too long are the also-rans.

For example, perhaps you give them a really well-designed audio/Midi API that is even easier to program for than what Windows/Mac has, thereby allowing them to get more feature-rich apps to market faster. And you provide better documentation, so that the makers don't end up making costly mistakes. Or perhaps like Apple did, you single-source the platform so you can tightly monitor quality control, and minimize fragmentation. Or you get a lot of folks to all agree on a base standard for audio/midi that is better than Windows or MacOS. There are quite a number of things you can do.

Linux has none of that. And there's no movement to correct that dilemma. And that's why it's not overcoming the chicken/egg scenario.

[bluzee]

I know guys who are still 100% analogue and record on tape. It's a creative process and what works for one person might not for another person.

[barbouze]

Professionals producers for pop stars, both aiming at commercial revenues, are only a subset of serious music enthusiasts.
There are also scientists/researchers in the DSP/audio field and I bet a lot of them are using Linux most of the time.
There are also archivists/sound restoration techs whose needs are easily fulfilled with a minimal Linux setup that allows batch processing. Artists with specific technical needs are also using Linux.
There are a lot of people that go unnoticed in (or around) the music industry and use Linux everyday.

It's just that the most visible music enthusiasts are also those with commercial needs because they are themselves a product. So if money is involved, there are no reasons to brag about doing everything with Linux for free.

Instead, promoting commercial products (DAWs, plugins, samples) and getting a commercial share out of it is one way to get money. Or using the "industry standard" of the moment that constrains you with specific and costly tools to feel legitimate about whatever you are doing.

[tavasti]

So how do you do this in practice? You give hardware/software makers a compelling advantage/feature to entice them into thinking that they could gain an advantage over their competitors. And then you remind them that the first person to market usually becomes the rich guy, and the ones who take too long are the also-rans.

For example, perhaps you give them a really well-designed audio/Midi API that is even easier to program for than what Windows/Mac has, thereby allowing them to get more feature-rich apps to market faster. And you provide better documentation, so that the makers don't end up making costly mistakes. Or perhaps like Apple did, you single-source the platform so you can tightly monitor quality control, and minimize fragmentation. Or you get a lot of folks to all agree on a base standard for audio/midi that is better than Windows or MacOS. There are quite a number of things you can do.

Linux has none of that. And there's no movement to correct that dilemma. And that's why it's not overcoming the chicken/egg scenario.

Now there is dilemma, who would do that? Nobody is getting money from desktop linux, so nobody has money to invest. But ok, I just made Eurojackpot-lottery, if I get jackpot I'll put few million euros to make things better.

[Gps]

I think one problem is that many people have not even heard of Linux.

I have among the yellow jackets over here, been promoting Linux.

Then the trouble starts. I explain that Linux is an operating system, which I have to explain like, its something you can use instead of windows.

They can't buy a pc with Linux though, like they can buy a mac or a pc with windows on it.

Maybe we need to wait, for seam deck users that want to run Cubase on their steam deck?
If one of the big ones would offer a Linux version, the others might just follow.

Then we only need to find some stores that will sell a pc with Linux pre-installed.

[sunrat]

There's a story about a little boy that was on the beach throwing back starfish that had washed ashore. A man came along and saw the little boy throwing back the starfish and told the boy, "Little boy, you're wasting your time. There are thousands of starfish washed ashore, you can't possibly throw them all back. This is nature's way. You're wasting your time, you can't make a difference." The little boy looked at the starfish he was holding, then threw it back into the ocean and said, "Made a difference to that one."

[Linuxmusician01]

Now there is dilemma, who would do that? Nobody is getting money from desktop linux, so nobody has money to invest. But ok, I just made Eurojackpot-lottery, if I get jackpot I'll put few million euros to make things better.

[off topic] Hmmmm. What about Linux system administrators? What about, for instance, Reaper? Even though only a small amount of their users use it on Linux, the DAW itself is a paid software. So if they wanna sell Reaper in general (which includes Linux) they would benefit from investing in Linux desktop.

Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, invests money in Linux Desktop if I'm not mistaken.

Google via Crostini officially enables/supports Linux desktop on a Chromebook which makes their stupid laptops finally usable for serious people. Even Microsoft appears to slowly, ever so slowly, turn. Command line Linux is already supported in Windows and I've read (fake news?) that a Desktop Environment should be possible in the foreseeable future. Maybe it already is via a dirty hack or something.

So the biggest companies in the whole wide world, which are even tech companies, have a (small) financial interest in Desktop Linux now. Remember: a small amount of money from M$ and Google combined is a lot of money. Combine that with the open source nature and thus a humongous (free) developer base and it might, just might, become something. Well, at least for a larger user base then now.