TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Bit Rate - And why it doesn't apply to you
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN FL is not the most intuitive to a lot of people - I for one hate the pattern based sequencing and like linear display sequencing - so do a few million others.

That's not what most people say however. FLStudio is likely the most used music software there is. Its also the most pirated [which probably has alot to do with it being used so much]

RichieV Where do you see a shit storm? No one is insulting anyone. No one is name calling or flaming. We are having a discussion. Albiet its off-topic, but i suggested earlier that we move this discussion elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir RichieV Where do you see a shit storm? No one is insulting anyone. No one is name calling or flaming. We are having a discussion. Albiet its off-topic, but i suggested earlier that we move this discussion elsewhere.

never madea a thread with so many pages.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV never madea a thread with so many pages.

I think it all started with Cronodevir saying that everyone should start using FLAC

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Why in music or software, would you want the total quality equal to the lowest common denominator among us? By you reasoning, Could I make a synth that has 3 buttons "House sound" "Trance Sound" "Psy Sound" and it magically produces your leads for you? It would be easy, intuitive and logical. You click a button and you have 'that' sound. And futher more, I would go and tell people using a Virus "with all those fnagled knobs and sliders" that the virus is too complicated for the average user and is thus bad hardware. And following this path could someone later say that "3 buttons is too complicated"..and make a synth with one button?

Apples and oranges. Of course you want major tweakability with a synth. The basic computer user doesn't want major tweakability, they want consistency and support. A hardware gearhead is not really (necessarily) comparable to your basic computer user.

Also, if we're going down that route, synth presets are not inherently evil, either. I don't build a new piano every time I want to play it...that doesn't mean I can't make beautiful or creative music with it. Also, keep in mind sample-based production. You can make some pretty amazing things out of "one sound".

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael Apples and oranges. Of course you want major tweakability with a synth. The basic computer user doesn't want major tweakability, they want consistency and support. A hardware gearhead is not really (necessarily) comparable to your basic computer user.

But what I am saying is you can't afford to have a gap like that, esp now since "your average computer user" IS getting into production and other fields, and they are bringing the over quality down. Even if you don't want to talk about control over the industry or control over the internet. You have to still see that simplification and pandering to the LCD hurts everyone. On one end you have easy to use and very restrictive software. On the other end you have very complex software, but you have the most control and the best quality.

I would rather have your average level of computing on a complex level with less people using computers because of it. Than have the average level extremely simplified, but it becomes accessible to everyone. And THAT is because the simpler it gets, the less control WE [advanced users] have over the software available, and the people who know shit about computers become [already are] the majority influence on further projects down the line. What I mentioned about that 1 button synth. It can ONLY go this route. This line of reasoning could hypothetically see the end of music all together. Music could become too complicated to make or listen to for your average person. And then even music or art could become niche.

Humanity in general is devolving. Most peoples ability and understanding is only getting worse. And by making the majority of software simple and panderish to the LCD, you only help that devolution.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Humanity in general is devolving. Most peoples ability and understanding is only getting worse. And by making the majority of software simple and panderish to the LCD, you only help that devolution.

The declination you perceive might have more to do with more people having access to technology (i.e. YouTube) that reveals how dumb they really are, rather than any devolution that might actually be occurring.

Lol, Tu Che!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN 1, you're a coding geek that "recognises coding is an artform".

I don't believe that he's a programmer. At least not a good programmer. Maybe a script kiddie.

Software is, informally, another branch of engineering. To be a good engineer you have to possess savvy business skills and soft skills, and be able to understand a product from all angles and at all levels of abstraction. I infer none of this from his posts. He's just another vapid, sophomoric /. malcontent.

Every day I'm faced with conflicting requirements, impossible problems, and bad-or-worse sets of options. This is the real business of software, and to suggest, even in jest, that it shouldn't be a paying job, is asinine. It's an incredibly difficult and stressful job (not that it isn't rewarding in its own way). It's even worse at a company like Microsoft when you have literally billions of customers and have to worry about 50 different languages, cultures, and legal systems, and millions of different hardware environments and organizational structures. Make the wrong move and if you're lucky you'll lose millions of sales; if you're not, you might get sued.

Your average freetard (and this crono dude seems to be no exception) does not have a clue when it comes to UI design, i18n, backward compatibility, mass deployment, security (both internal and external), work estimation, project scheduling, scaling constraints, high availability, SLAs, team coordination (CVS doesn't count), licensing issues, or any of the other concepts around software development. Most of them don't even understand concepts fundamental to real-world software development such as data structures, code organization, code reviews, tiers and other abstractions, database optimization, coupling and cohesion, parallel processing, unit testing, regression testing, code coverage, or good naming conventions.

This dude probably ran the Linux kernel compilation script once and thinks that makes him an expert on software. Maybe if he was really adventurous he grepped the source and edited two lines in order to fix some trivial bug, and never tried to commit his changes back to the cvs.

Crono, if you really know anything at all, I would love to see an example of something you've created. Even if it's some trivial web 2.0 social shopping cart mashup crap or hacked-up network backup app. Put your money where your mouth is.

You mention all these aspects in software when they are either taken care of just the same in an open environment, or they are not applicable. And further more the result is still..the same. We aren't talking about the process to make software, we are talking about the proprietary end product vs the open end product. We aren't talking about business. We are talking about which is better for the future of computing.

I'm an avid user of bittorent, whether software is free or not is not relevant to me. I can get what ever I want regardless to some price some guy put on it. And I'm betting that is the truth for most of us here. I'm not saying all this because i hate a company or i like free shit. I'm saying it because in the long run over simplification doesn't benefit anyone..catering to the masses doesn't help humanity because the masses are stupid.

You sound like a guy in the military who tries to explain what war is, when you have people who do guerrilla warfare which makes all known strategy obsolete. Case in point, no one has ever beaten guerrillas.

I get what your saying, but in the end all you have to show for it is a simple restricted product invented and catered to the lowest among its target. Many open projects cater to the most advanced of their targets. Software direction is I think very important for determining the future generations of users. Do you want the computer user in 2020 to be sole reliant on that invisible company who makes their software, and is completely and utterly dependent upon that company else they can't function. Or do you want people who all know what they are doing, are capable and do not need a dedicated company to give them the ability to work.

From what it sounds like to me, the open model and proprietary model both see the masses as simplistic, not intelligent and they need things made easy for them. Your model just wants to cater to them and that be that, the open model wants them to learn to do things themselves and contribute. And these ideas are apparent in the end product of both models.

Why do you think bitorrent exists? It requires people to contribute to receive.

quote:

I would love to see an example of something you've created.

Here's a little program I created, called "Hello Earth".

quote:

#include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include int main() { std::cout << "Hello, world!\n"; }

/idiot

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Here's a little program I created, called "Hello Earth".

olololol

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir You mention all these aspects in software when they are either taken care of just the same in an open environment, or they are not applicable. And further more the result is still..the same.

lol, they are most certainly not taken care of, nor are they part of the "process" as opposed to the "end product" - there is no possible way you could say that unless you had no clue whatsoever what the terms meant. I suggest you look some of them up before you further embarrass yourself.

I'll bet you get stuffed into lockers a lot in school.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir I'm an avid user of bittorent

As if this wasn't blatantly obvious. In fact your whole argument can be summed up as: I don't think I should have to pay for stuff, therefore all software should be free, and open-source software is the best because it's free, and I will make up any other bullshit I can think of to justify my w4r3z0rz.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Here's a little program I created, called "Hello Earth".

Well done! Now write one to find the first 50 Mersenne primes. Must run in under 30 seconds on a conventional x86 PC.

No one should be able to make money off of something they have an unlimited quantity of.

And also, you keep bringing up points that change nothing. Catering to the LCD doesn't help in any way. And you can't debate me on this, so you talk about the most insignificant parts of my posts, things that aren't even the point. Why bother?

Even if those points aren't part of open source..so? What is your point? Your model still hurts the development of human intelligence. Its only about getting the quick buck now and fuck all who it may harm now or in the future. Because you forget the very principle of your model. The proprietary model. And that is making money. They didn't sit around and decide "we want to make quality software and projects that help further the development of computing and those that use computers" Proprietary software is closed so that no one else can use that code to make money. Has nothing to do with usability, logic or intuitiveness, it doesn't make a project develop better [its been demonstrated to be the opposite] Its about the money.

Lets pretend its 10 years from now. And all these "issues" you have with Linux no longer exist, Linux is the new leader in desktop environments. Then what would you have to say? Because you may say Linux is clunky and hard to use, but you forget it DOES get more user friendly every year, by leaps and bounds. So what happens when it is as easy to use as windows? [its already as capable as windows]

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir No one should be able to make money off of something they have an unlimited quantity of.

This is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous statement of the evening.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker This is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous statement of the evening.

No it isn't. Why should someone be allowed to make money of something they can simply copy and sell again? They didn't do any work for that copy. That not extra man hours. That's nothing, that's free money. And on the internet, its only one click. So it doesn't even cause physical strain to copy it.

And further more, why should they even be allowed to have the audacity to tell people they can't copy it? You can't tell people what they can or cannot do with the data they own. If its in their possession, they own it.

Proprietary laws are arbitrary rules someone just came up with one day on the fly. And trying to enforce them is next to impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Catering to the LCD doesn't help in any way. And you can't debate me on this, so you talk about the most insignificant parts of my posts, things that aren't even the point.

Don't confuse the fact that I won't debate it with the idea that I can't debate it. I won't debate it because it's obviously false and you don't have a shred of evidence to support your position. Even a cursory investigation by a reasonable person would reveal that software - like every other product on this planet - is built for a specific target market and optimized to be usable and enjoyable by said market.

Ditto Eddie on the money comment. WTF? Maybe it was just worded badly but it's hard to imagine anyone being stupid enough to say something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir No it isn't. Why should someone be allowed to make money of something they can simply copy and sell again? They didn't do any work for that copy. That not extra man hours. That's nothing, that's free money. And further more, why should they even be allowed to have the audacity to tell people they can't copy it? You can't tell people what they can or cannot do with the data they own. If its in their possession, they own it.

Hence a license to use such data is utilized to secure usage for intellectual property. I have to run, right now, but may get into the discussion tomorrow for a more detailed and nuanced explanation. Right now, however, having entertained and debunked your thoroughly sociopathic argument before, I'll leave it at, "You're wrong."

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Hence a license to use such data is utilized to secure usage for intellectual property. I have to run, right now, but may get into the discussion tomorrow for a more detailed and nuanced explanation. Right now, however, having entertained and debunked your thoroughly sociopathic argument before, I'll leave it at, "You're wrong."

Or I can copy that license and give to everyone else, and what? You will do not a thing. And they will copy it and spread it. Some model you have their. And your only limiting yourself in the process. Uou put up "rules" and 'hope' others abide by them. Because there is not now, nor will their ever be, a way to enforce them. So why even try?

Diginut:

You can't debate it.

No one is talking about "Even a cursory investigation by a reasonable person would reveal that software - like every other product on this planet - is built for a specific target market and optimized to be usable and enjoyable by said market." We are talking about which model is better for human development. And you haven't even acknowledged that point. Despite it being THE point for the discussion.

I'm agreeing with you 100% But I'm saying its wrong and detrimental to the development of computing systems and humans ability to use them in the long run. And that is the point you keep skirting. Further more this simplicity in software being detrimental has ben demonstrated in EDM music. Many will not say trance blows now. But anyone from the late 80's to late 90's involved in trance WILL say that it went down hill a bit *because* it was so simple and easy to use and get FLStudio and Ableton [and other applications] to make new music.

This phenomena was also demonstrated on the Nintendo Entertainment System. That system has more than 5 times as many games as any other system around. Even today. And that is because it became easy to write games for it. And as a result there are a handful of good games, but most, most,most of them are not worth a first play through. While on more recent consoles there are less game but many more [relatively speaking] games that people enjoyed. Because its almost impossible to write bootleg games for modern consoles [cept the Dreamcast, that games console is the gateway to console modding and game modding ]

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Why should someone be allowed to make money of something they can simply copy and sell again?

Because they spent millions of man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars designing and implementing the best possible product?

Distribution costs are not relevant to the discussion. Think of it this way: instead of selling it for $100 per copy (or whatever), they have priced the product at $100 M (or whatever) and spread that cost out over 1 million copies. In fact, this is actually how software is usually priced. Of course a company cannot control how many copies are actually sold - maybe it's more, maybe less - but business is all about estimation.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir We are talking about which model is better for human development.

No, YOU are talking about that, and you only started talking about it today when all of your other arguments were debunked. The original discussion was about FOSS alternatives being unable to enter the mainstream due to their lack of utility, which you attempted to turn into a discussion about which was a better model for software development, which you then, just recently, attempted to turn into a discussion about which is better for "human development" - a term which you have not even formally defined.

I'm not even going to bother with this canard you keep repeating - once again, you do not have one iota of evidence to support your claim. I agree with Eddie that it's sociopathic; you're like a conspiracy theorist, every time you're backed into a corner, you try to change the subject and pretend that everybody else was just misunderstanding you. Lather, rinse, repeat. You're not fooling anybody.

And you have not demonstrated why Linux doesn't compete with windows despite that it does everything windows does. And if not, a coder can make it so in a few days if they so wished.

Because usability is a matter of prospective. What is easy to use is a matter of prospective. What a thing can do vs what a thing can' do, is not a matter of prospective. And at the same time, anything you name that windows does that Linux can't, there are just as many things Linux does that windows can't. Something being easy to use is not something you can measure or quantify. And if you say that most people use windows [as if that's proof its easier to use] Then I say that is only because they haven't heard about linux. So there isn't even remotely an even amount of exposeure for the 3 major systems to judge that kind of thing.

So you see in essence discussion on this topic won't lead anywhere because in fact in terms of actual ability windows and Linux are for their own thing. They have their own purposes. In my opinion Linux is better for me, as an average user. Than windows. [which was my point in the very beginning, about my personal preference, and in the process of explaining why, we go into a debate about why my preference was supposedly wrong yatta yatta yatta...]

That being said, I moved the discussion on.

Do we still need to talk? I'm getting bored.

I'm going to make one more last post and then I won't becoming back into this thread... cronodevir, your arguments have just become far too stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Uou put up "rules" and 'hope' others abide by them. Because there is not now, nor will their ever be, a way to enforce them. So why even try?

Um... Lawsuits?

Also, you need to remember that piracy is only possible because of the way software is currently distributed. Piracy is not possible under cloud computing and other such methods.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir No one should be able to make money off of something they have an unlimited quantity of.

This is absolutely retarded.

A pair of Nike shoes cost around $0.50 to $3 to produce, yet you pay $100+. Where is that extra $97 you paid going? TO RECOUP THE EFFORT THAT WENT INTO DEVELOPING THE SHOE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

When you go to a lawyer to get a contract made for you, why do you pay him $500 an hour, instead of his living costs for that day divided by 24 hours? Because he had to spend $50k going to university and working his ass off.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir We are talking about which model is better for human development.

Where is there more innovation, the US (capitalist) or Russia (communist)? If you can't work out the relevance of that analogy for yourself, here it is; profit motive is essential for innovation.

Law suits. Lol.

Ive emailed EA games and told them Ive used bitorrent, not a thing was done. Software piracy will always be possible. And oh..oh yeah, both communism and capitalism are wrong so yeah.

quote:

Originally posted by palm conslusion is imo, just keep it at 44,1kHz 16bit

Finally someone sums the entire topic up in 1 line!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.