For VST(i) support under Debian/Ubuntu, "apt-cache search fst". FST hosts VST(i) under Linux. Ardour 2.0 also has VST support, but you have to compile it yourself, see http://ardour.org/building_vst_support :
Please note that it is illegal to build Ardour 2.0 with VST support and then distribute the binary to anyone else. This is because Steinberg continues to refuse to allow redistribution of the otherwise freely available VST SDK.
There's different ways of using VST(i) under Linux, but neither can be built-in the distribution as it would conflict with Steinberg's property.
For dual-head support, which card are you using? If nvidia, you have to get the closed-source drivers from their site and let it compile for your kernel.
at0m.
Last edited by at0m on Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Glad someone is investigating Linux here, I´ve spent some hours with ...
Going Linux does makes sense though, and I will keep an eye open on the developments going on, and eventually; Goodbye, Windoze!
No, it does not make any sense at all
it is 2nd class dog pooh wannabe programming (I lack a vomit smiley)
a waste of time unless you have too much of that precious stuff
it does have great potential, though... in theory
but then in theory the 2nd impact is due for a few thousand years, too
the SUSE distribution is out for 20 - yes 20(!) YEARS and you still cannot even install the thingy out of the box.
I also spent 'some hours', probably thinking the same as Ken - me smart a** dealing with computers for decades, no big deal... ha, ha, ha
but I'm not experienced for the sake to ignore what I learned during all those years.
for me it makes perfectly sense that companies like M$ or Apple make things more and more complicated to tie their customers to their systems.
it would be easy for those 'community' folks to offer an alternative - the doors are more than wide open.
but either they didn't do their homework - or the smart ones already run along with the afforementioned big boys - eventually we're only in it for the money, as Frank once perfectly named it. So it looks like 2nd class...
I feel so sorry for you astroman. Sorry that you cannot even install the simplest of Linux distro's with all your intellect and decennia of professional geek experience, and sorry that you have to make ridiculous what you can't seem to get your head around. Bill and Steve need people like you.
Linux has a steep learning curve, that's no secret. can audio apps run on linux flawlessly? sure they can. the library of software is of course restricted but they are at work. few years of devs from passionates and we'll be in heaven
yes that was a prediction
Last edited by Gordon Gekko on Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
at0m wrote:I feel so sorry for you astroman. Sorry that you cannot even install the simplest of Linux distro's with all your intellect and decennia ...
yes, at0m - that's how it looks...
my apologies that memory overwhelmed me for a short moment and I lost my patience
but the point is not that I cannot get my head around it - I am simply not willing to.
If someone promotes an 'alternative' I'm expecting a tiny bit more than fakeware - or is there any original piece of work exclusively available under Linux ?
There's nothing really big that only runs on linux, I think it's just the way the audio apps are organized that's sort of unique. Their version of VST, which is JACK, is independent of the sequencer, so JACK serves as the central audio router.
So the usual sequencer = host concept doesn't really exist. Which is kind of like SCOPE, where as long as the application (synth, drum machine, mod synth, effect) is JACK compliant, it can be routed into any other JACK app. What's also interesting is that a lot of these applications support more than one standard. (like output directly to sound card via ALSA sound driver, etc)
The problem is that linux went through so many standards in the past, that it's confusing which ones support which. Most of them support multiple, which makes filtering things out more confusing. For me though, I'm just sticking to JACK applications since they're most flexible.
BUT only if I can get this thing to work! Still cant' figure out the dual head thing. I have ATI, and got the proprietary drivers, and use xrandr, but somehow I can't edit the xorg.conf (the config.sys of x windows) to automatically apply the adjustments on startup. So, I can get dualhead to work if i manually execute the proper commands using xrandr. Bottom line is, though, I'd rather spend time writing music.
Tom, as so often happens in these matters, i agree with you.
it's not that Linux doesn't show promise, it's just a mess that's not worth dealing with. if the Linux community had free or commercial products that equaled the mac/m$ world and installing the os was as straightforward as windows, EVERYONE would dump the other guys(well, a lot would anyway).
i don't like either of Bill's companies, i'd be happy if i had another, more ethical choice, but Linux is 2nd-rate(for the "consumer") by design. Linux is for tinkerers and the true professional who is doing custom, specialty programming(aerospace, IT, industrial, etc). that's it's reason for existing, it's place in the "market". the rest of the rhetoric is bogus.
now, if SonicCore made an integrated Scope os, sequencer/recorder, pci/pci-e card....it wouldn't be compatible with so many other products....well, it's a thought, anyway.
taking the whole os issue personally just makes no sense, either. none of us are those things. we just make music and use the tools available to do that.
garyb wrote: ...taking the whole os issue personally just makes no sense, either. none of us are those things. we just make music and use the tools available to do that.
I don't take it personally at all and it's ok to receive a biting comment, as I haven't been shy either.
I am indeed convinced that the majority of talented developers uses Open Source and freely distributed OS versions as a diving board into business.
A legitimate and understandable approach.
So it's very unlikely that one of us will ever see a really smart and unique idea grow under one of those distributions, as people will drop out and embed that stuff into whatever as soon as they see a real business opportunity.
Charity doesn't pay my rent or the gas for the wife's car. Applicable to any other guy and that simple...
yeah, at this point my endeavor has completely failed in a "let's try to do this in a real life scenario" perspective. If the tunes were really due on monday, and if I spent entire Saturday trying to get the most basic things to function, I would have been screwed. Luckily, the actual due date is weeks from now, and I still have a working setup to compose on.
This experiment is showing two sides. One side is, being able to at least get this far on an external drive, and getting 11ms latency from a pretty crappy piece of equipment is amazing. I don't have time for it right now, but the modular synthesizers on Linux have a lot of potential too. Also, the effects are very lean and to the point, in other words, they're LIGHT. So, getting this much from an open source platform, on an undedicated system is actually pretty good from a technology point of view.
But, as everyone agrees, the hassle in getting every RIGHT so that the work environment is streamlined and robust enough for time constrained work is unseen in any other platform. The software capabilities of linux audio apps don't really out weight the time lost. (because vsti's are very advanced now)
It's all in theory. Theoretically, if you get a linux system to work right. The right audio IO, the right software, the right kernel build, etc, etc, then it would be an awesome DAW. It's a little different from Receptor, since it's an all inclusive DAW and not just a VSTi rack. That's in theory. Linux has the POTENTIAL to do that, but it's far from it.
It seems to me, though, that the biggest flaw of anything Linux is the poor documentation. A lot of the linux audio programs have wikis, with all important things listed in the table of contents, but when you click to read it, the entry is empty. No matter how awesome and advanced the software is, if the interface is fairly complicated, people won't be able to appreciate it without a manual. I dunno, maybe a side effect of "everything being changed by everyone, all the time". The documentation can't keep up with it.
It really sucks because Linux community boils down to this: "If you don't like it, don't use it. Open Source is about choice, and if your choice is to not use it, you don't have to". And this becomes the ultimate excuse for not improving usability. It's the open source mentality used the wrong way, and I see it all over the place. It's kind of like the guy who writes free music, and won't fix problems because he did it for free. I do that all the time. LOL
if i were a programmer, i'd feel differently, maybe. i could just write code for the system i needed. Linux would be a great os for that. that seems extreme when the commercial products are amazingly good, all of them, for all their faults. otherwise, it's that "looking for something free built by somebody else" mentality....
I'm trying to go the xorg.conf route. The strange thing is, if I delete xorg.conf and run xrandr, it detects all outputs just fine. Actually, I can manually get it work perfectly. I just can't get the same result through xorg.conf. Problem is, with xorg.conf, xrandr sees just 1 output, called "default". It seems like I'm very close, checking line by line with the intel link you posted.
It sucks, but I think I need to start asking around in forums. Actually, pm you my xorg.conf file once I get home. I'm not sure if it's a typo. It's hard because I don't really know the proper syntax of xorg.conf. I can probably figure it out, but the bottom line is it seems like a lot of extra work. It's already been 2 days since I started trying to figure this out..
Oh, and Creamware linux support should be right around the corner too!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: richard_AT_creamware.com [mailto:richard_AT_creamware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 10:45 PM
> To: thudson_AT_cygnus.com
> Subject: CreamWare/Linux
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> I don't have a timeline yet, but support for Linux is official (according
> to Frank Hund. President, CreamWare GmbH - and me, too).
>
> ...Richard
>
> Richard Homme
> richard_AT_creamware.com
