|
Linux Multi-Media-Studio
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sixofour.604 |
LMMS - Linux Multi-Media Studio
http://lmms.sourceforge.net/home.php
Its becoming a pretty capable Linux based FL clone. And is likely the easyest to use music software avilable for linux. If you want to make electronic music without having to use a tracker. If given a choice, Id say stick with a windows based sequencer for now, as this won't be replacing FL or Cubase any time soon. But if you have a linux system, and produce music, its a fun program to check out. It has full VSTi support among many other features. And if you use linux, you probably know about the restricted extras, so mp3 support isn't a problem.
They also have a wiki for more indepth info.
http://lmms.sourceforge.net/wiki/in...title=Main_Page
To davidmicheal, I think this sequencer is far along enough to be added to your list with a review, if you are feeling up to it. There is a large linux production world out there, but almost 0 topics exist for it outside of the small communities which the producers visit. |
|
|
| sixofour.604 |
| The Linux grass is getting greener. So don't scof too loudly. |
|
|
| palm |
  |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
The Linux grass is getting greener. So don't scof too loudly. |
It's really not, in my opinion. Relative to the mainstream desktop, Linux hasn't progressed much further than when I was using it 7 years ago. The biggest problem with Linux is that every time it catches up on something, the mainstream moves ahead on something else. For example, Linux still doesn't have an office suite that is fully compatible (or even remotely compatible enough) with the mainstream formats. In fact, I would go as far as saying that relative compatibility with mainstream office formats is worse than it was around the Windows 98-2000 era.
Linux was great back when computers were simple. Now, desktop Linux is more bloated, buggy and generally incoherent than Windows or OSX ever will be. This problem is inherent in the open source approach, mainly due to the lack of centralized decision making and standards. The graphics subsystems are long since overdue for a complete overhaul and so is audio. Instead, we just have a patched to Xorg that has terrible performance and half a dozen different audio systems (OSS, ALSA, Pulse...). I would continue, but I think you get the picture.
Desktop Linux is a total waste of time IMO and, while I hope it does, I can't see it getting better any time soon. |
|
|
| Zild |
| Just use OSX. It's UNIX with an nice Aqua GUI. |
|
|
| sixofour.604 |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
It's really not, in my opinion. Relative to the mainstream desktop, Linux hasn't progressed much further than when I was using it 7 years ago. The biggest problem with Linux is that every time it catches up on something, the mainstream moves ahead on something else. For example, Linux still doesn't have an office suite that is fully compatible (or even remotely compatible enough) with the mainstream formats. In fact, I would go as far as saying that relative compatibility with mainstream office formats is worse than it was around the Windows 98-2000 era.
Linux was great back when computers were simple. Now, desktop Linux is more bloated, buggy and generally incoherent than Windows or OSX ever will be. This problem is inherent in the open source approach, mainly due to the lack of centralized decision making and standards. The graphics subsystems are long since overdue for a complete overhaul and so is audio. Instead, we just have a patched to Xorg that has terrible performance and half a dozen different audio systems (OSS, ALSA, Pulse...). I would continue, but I think you get the picture.
Desktop Linux is a total waste of time IMO and, while I hope it does, I can't see it getting better any time soon. |
Well, Linux does have office, Microsoft just has a monopoly, nothing linux or anyone else can do about it. Officially.
While I agree with the audio/visual need to an overhaul...still beats the out of windows. Vista and 7 are completely unuseable. I doubt its even possiable to make music on them. Unless you are willing to spend 45 thousand dollars on a Pc to run them. I don't want to buy a completely new pc every time a service pack comes out. Which is what you pretty much have to do. And for Mac, it has no usable software...it has logic and photoshop. Two half-way decent products..but nothing else of note.
Considering the options, I don't see where people will go. Though, its likely they will just "settle" with using windows no matter how bad it gets. Even though, realisticly speaking, linux already does what windows does, its just hard for developers, and thus a little harder for users. And no one wants to learn how to use a computer. I think when ubuntu gets farther along it will get better.
Bloat? Lol. Vanilla ubuntu runs flawlessly on a system from the 90's... Vista cannot run on a system from before 2006, both operating systems are capable of the same tasks. Id say there is a difference. Why Windows requires 20 times the amount of resources to do the same thing, is a mystery.
Operating system dicussion aside. LMMS also works in windows. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8pH...feature=related |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Well, Linux does have office, Microsoft just has a monopoly, nothing linux or anyone else can do about it. Officially.
|
The point is that Linux doesn't meet people's basic (office work) needs. Arguably, it has not progressed in this area at all and may have even gone backwards. The reasons for why this is so are irrelevant.
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
And for Mac, it has no usable software...it has logic and photoshop. Two half-way decent products..but nothing else of note. |
You do realise that Microsoft Office has been available for macs, for years? In terms of meeting the needs of the average Joe, this puts OSX a HELL of a long way ahead of Linux. Other than games, OSX has virtually everything anyone needs. Linux on the other hand, does not even meet people's basic requirements of a computer.
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Bloat? Lol. Vanilla ubuntu runs flawlessly on a system from the 90's... Vista cannot run on a system from before 2006, both operating systems are capable of the same tasks. Id say there is a difference. Why Windows requires 20 times the amount of resources to do the same thing, is a mystery.
|
Vista was designed for fast computers and takes advantage of that. Try loading up OpenOffice on Linux, then Vista. What you will see is it loading a hell of a lot faster in Vista. Why? Because Vista has cached half the program in RAM. Uninformed people see this as "Vista wasting too many resources". The reality is that idle resources = wasted resources. If someone is too poor to buy a new $700-900 computer every 8 years (time from XP to Vista), Linux is ideal for them. However, such people are a minority. Microsoft don't care about these people and it makes no sense for them to hinder their product just so that tight asses can use it.
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Even though, realisticly speaking, linux already does what windows does, its just hard for developers, and thus a little harder for users. And no one wants to learn how to use a computer. I think when ubuntu gets farther along it will get better.
|
Linux does not do what Windows does. What Linux DAW comes close to having the features of Cubase? What Linux image editor has half the features of Photoshop (GIMP sucks - no professional would use it)? Find me an office suite that supports the file formats that everyone relies on, for day to day work (OpenOffice will rape the formatting on any half-complex documents). Find me a decent alternative to Adobe Flash, Illustrator... The list goes on - there are none.
The problem with Linux has never been it's difficulty. I am a programmer and have spent years using Linux, but I do not use it on my desktop purely because the applications are not there.
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
While I agree with the audio/visual need to an overhaul...still beats the out of windows. Vista and 7 are completely unuseable. I doubt its even possiable to make music on them.
|
The Windows (particularly Vista) video and audio subsystems are absolutely superior to that of Linux. WaveRT, CoreAudio and UAA were enormous upgrades over Windows XP and Vista now has real time audio subsystems that rival that of OSX. With Linux, there are too many incompatibilities, no standardization and the entire Linux audio area is just a total cluster fvck. Don't even get me started on video... Even the purest Linux supporters know that Xorg is an absolute mess and that Windows or OSX crap all over it. These statements of yours really make me question your knowledge of Linux. If you've never compiled your own kernel or moved beyond the typical noob distros (Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, etc.), you need to re-evaluate your opinions. Install Gentoo, Arch or Slackware, use them for 2 years and learn a programming language. Once you have done that, I think you have sufficient knowledge to entertain further discussion.
Linux can be good for a very small number of specific purposes - servers, embedded systems, web browsing, etc. Over the 7 or so years I have used Linux, I have not seen many major developments in the way of it becoming a general purpose operating system, like OSX or Windows. If it meets your needs, more power to you! Despite my talk, I am very much a fan of Linux. However, as a general purpose operating system, it is . I'm tired of Linux newbs being all like "yarrr I'm so leet coz I installed Ubuntu! I'm like a communist because I use GPL software! Microsoft and their capitalistic monopoly! I'm like Neo from the matrix now!". These sorts of people are bad for the future of Linux.
For the record, Neo used BSD. :p |
|
|
| sixofour.604 |
I know about Xorg, and the complete horror that is pulseaudio and ALSA. But still...worse than windows? What are your priorities? I don't see how that is fathomable. Vista chaches resources instead of giving those reasources to apps that need them. And the amount of resources needed to run an app on vanilla windows and say..vanilla debian, is a lot more. Try it with firefox and youtube as a home page.
I guess I have a minority expriense, but with windows the problems are insurmountable. Take my current windows state right now; I get the following error atleast 10 times when I run ANY .exe file.
Why do I get this error? Because I had to install windows media player 11. Why did I sacrifice my rights and use WMP11? Because windows XP doesn't know what an mp3 player is, and after installing all the various service packs and what not, WMP11 was the only thing that allowed windows to recognize my mp3 player.
Even worse, have you read the instructions for uninstalling windows media player 11? You have to reboot, go into safe mode and run a series of commands no one has used in the last 30 years. There is no uninstall program. So I am pretty much stuck with 10 error boxes upon the opneing of any program. Unless I open paintshop, which usualy gives about 50 of those errors.
That is windows, that has been the expriense ever since I started using it in 98' with windows 95. I'm not trying to say "linux is teh rawks and microsoft sucks because of blah blah"...I genuinly have better expriense with linux, the only issues with linux are compatiability of all of my applications. But no real system instability or problems. Ive used ubuntu, debian, knoppix and a few others.
Besides that, just try the program, I don't mind OS discussion, but lets not loose the topic here. |
|
|
| palm |
| try the mediaplayer included in windows 7, it rocks! plays everything ive puttet into it. Also windows 7 works great on a macbook pro for those who are interested, u just need to look up the 64bit videodriver manually from the OSX cd insead of the 32bit it tries to install itself. |
|
|
|
|
