PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

The newest version of LMMS is not bundled with Ubuntu Studio, and so I had to download the source, and compile it myself. The process was a pain, but once I got the hang of it (read error, find package it needs, try again) it was pretty straight forward from there. In case anyone else wants to try, or just so people can find this through search, I'll list them here.

Keywords: packages required to comiple LMMS (linux multimedia studio) source code on Ubuntu Studio (7.10 aka gutsy gibbon)

[basic]
svn
automake
libtool
g++

[Qt3]
libqt3-mt libqt3-mt-dev libqt3-headers qt3-dev-tools
[Alsa]
libasound2-dev
[Jack]
libjack0.100.0-dev libjackasyn-dev
[SDL]
libsdl-sound1.2-dev libsdl1.2-dev libsdl-mixer1.2-dev

[Others (wine, vst support, etc)]
libsndfile1-dev
libsamplerate0-dev
libstk0-dev libstk0c2a
festival-dev
wine-dev

So, once you've installed all of these, you can follow the directions in the LMMS documentation and things should go fine. One thing you should note is that LMMS in the start menu doesn't work. At least it didn't for me, so you need to run it from the command line. ("lmms")

The verdict again, unfortunately is that this piece of software is utter nonesense. Perhaps it is a proof of concept, I'm not sure. It looks like it will work, but there are so many usability issued I can't even start. However, VST support worked for the 1 experiment I did, which was a freeware drum machine. It seems like it loads, and plays just fine without any crashes.

The bigger problem is that the software is very buggy. Buttons start acting erratically after a while (reacts inconsistently). The interface is also very inefficient. Instrument editing (vsti or not) can end up being several menus deep, obvious functions not being there (such as looped playback), etc. It also falls under the same category as other linux audio software. "It might work if you have all the time in the world to fiddle around with it."

The biggest problem of all, is that I couldn't find a mixer. There probably isn't one. And that's a complete show stopper for everyone I think. Unless you're the person who wrote LMMS, who apparently doesn't in LMMS. I guess it's possible to export all tracks to ardour (a fairly solid audio multitrack app), and the mix in there, but again, "IMWIYHATTITWTFAWI" (abbreviated this time)

I'm fairly disappointed in this outcome. It wouldn't have bugged me so much if LMMS itself was a solid app, and the only thing holding it back was vst support.. but it was the opposite. The vst support was fine (so-so), and software was awful. See, this takes away the last reason for linux audio to whine.

The whole linux audio scene, IMHO, depends on the fact that linux has state of the art, super solid, stable, non-fat, mechanically supurior applications. And you're supposed to say, "well, if you can live with our LADSPA effects, or somehow make plausible sounds with the numerous poorly designed synths, then you have the world's most efficiently written apps to work on. You might even be able to use VSTis if you're lucky." But take away the "good app" portion, then you really don't have anything. You have LADSPA effects (these are fairly good, I admit), poorly done linux synths with lots of compatibility issues, and poorly done sequencers, and the best of the bunch are VST effects and intruments? That's a bunch of poorly written linux apps, clinging onto commercially written VSTis for quality and usability. I would see that as a white flag.

I really have no idea why it is such a chronic problem for linux. Perhaps people who make tracker type music have a completely different requirement from a sequencer. (but lmms looks and behaves completely different from renoise or fruity) There is something substantially different about their design philosophy. I'm still not sure if the philosophy is just wrong, or unmusical, or if I've been so conditioned to think the way commercial software designers taught me to think. It's always hard to tell when you try out different software, whether the stress is because you simply don't know where a certain function is (or it's combined with something else), or it's because the software is flawed and the function isn't there. I guess I still reserve my judgement on this issue, trying to keep my mind open to new ideas.

Lastly, I'll list a few things I find promising about LMMS. I think it's important to at least see some positives... thought as you can tell, I'm trying VERY hard.

So, first of all, the VSTi and VST support. Though it's not 100% compatible with all released VST, the way in which LMMS supports VST is different from all other solutions in linux in that it doesn't require the VST SDK from steinberg. For open source purists, that means the code is 100% open source.. for me, it doesn't mean much except that I don't have to download the VST SDK in order to compile from source. (But I had to compile from source anyway, so I don't think I gained much)

Next, is the non-MDI option. This means that the app won't take a multi-document interface approach, which is 1 big window hosting a bunch of smaller windows (cubase, etc). So, if you switch this on, all your small windows become free floating windows, and you are free to put them where you wish. Works great for dual head. But this function is severely broken, so it's not usable at the moment.

Finally, LMMS has its own synth building architecture, and its library is growing steadily. The ones that LMMS comes with are fairly powerful, like a string physmod, or a 3 osc subtractive synth. Only problem is that their unified interface thing hurts, since not all instruments benefit from a tiny window with a 5 tab interface.

Since apparently linux people like copying mac interfaces or other platforms, why not just copy cubase or Logic and be done with it?

Try again in 10 years.

I'm beginning feel like it really might take 10 more years to get even a basic workable setup. I don't understand why these guys can't get their act together. Or well, I guess if they did, then it probably wouldn't be open source.

IMHO the problem isn't the open source concept per se, but rather the type of people who are doing the programming and design. The whole thing about Linux is that it's an uber-geek domain. Uber-geeks are not the best people to design interfacing and functionality in an app for a musician/engineer - they aren't going to do any meaningful work in the app (they are primarily programmers or they would be busy making music). The uber-geekdom also contributes to the 'fiddling' mentality - in other words, why make a well-designed, easy-to-use app when you can do 935935753 things in a certain voodoo order instead? I found it quite bizarre when the EnergyXT guy made a Linux version of v2.... I'd *love* to see his sales figures. He seemed to announce an OSX version pretty quickly after the Windows/Linux versions were released...

By the way LMMS looks like the most ugly, confusing thing I've ever seen.

Anyway thanks a lot Ken!

Well linux won Hollywood already, being the dominant OS for 3D-rendering/Effects, so the "not-pro" bit isnt exactly true...

Then again, i guess its because there are a lot more graphic software and hardware vendors that actually support the platform, than in the music industry.

Is there real advantages in getting there Ken?

well, it's the same thing as with video/3D. linux allows for very efficient use of hardware. Also, for programmers, linux is very customizable, but you have to actually write or edit the program. Realistically speaking, the customizability won't affect most of us. It's also the most stable thing I've ever seen, given I don't experiment with the settings.

For the sake of perfect stability everything is worth it.

Now in terms of use it is so the same as using XP, isnt' it? Perhaps you can load more instruments because it is lighter than XP for instance?

From what I hear, you won't be able to load more just because it's linux. My guess is it's all the OTHER things on the computer that affects it, like unneeded services, etc. Also, linux is less liable to cumulative registry junk that windows usually collects over time.

In terms of effects, tho, the LADSPA effects which are like VST effects for linux, are extremely well (efficiently) written, so those are extremely light. There are also simple scripting languages, and modular environments that allow you to easily create effects and synths. (like mod, but a little more involved) They don't have the flashy GUI like VST effects, but the internals are very well done.

But of course, all this is useless if there is no sequencer to work on. In linux audio, the merging of MIDI and audio hasn't taken place at a global level yet, since the two main audio apps, Ardour (audio only) and Rosegarden (mainly MIDI) are completely separate entities. There are some that try to join audio and MIDI, but like LMMS, they are still very new and experimental. Rosegarden also just looks plainly ugly. Like something that belongs in a real rose garden, or any garden. It looks like that ugly blouse your aunt always wears on special occasions. <- now that's a seriously funny one liner!!

There are different ways of looking at this tho. One is that, well, like darkrezin says, since most of these people don't pump out products, let alone anything, from these software, they're not pressed to make practical decisions. The other way of looking at this is that since the JACK platform (like rewire for linux) allows for very flexible routing of audio, maybe people don't have a problem with routing audio from Rosegarden into Ardour, and mixing it there. I personally find that dumb, but since those two have been around for a while, that workflow may have become ingrained into the platform. It's inefficient, but again, most of these people aren't concerned with being efficient.

It's ironic, because the interface, and many aspects about the way linux OS is developed, is all about efficiency, and doing things the "less popular but correct" way. Anyway, I can go on complaining about this stuff.. but hey, look on the bright side.. linux isn't a big mystery full of unsure promises anymore.

we need to get sonic core to port scope 5 osx code to linux, use VDAT & Triple dat knowledge to be able to offer a viable and amazing tracker solution and make sure external hardware sequencers work with the stuff, shouldn't be too hard. kidding, kidding *always kidding*

well, you're right.. osx to linux seems like a feasible transition. just guessing, but anyway.. I think once it's possible to get a linux box to host scope in some way, then we can build cheap, dedicated machines, and control them from elsewhere. Definitely solves the crappy sequencer app issue.

kensuguro wrote:... and control them from elsewhere...

or use linux straight up

stardust wrote:I would jump to it.

oh I would jump it too, nights after nights after nights... without ever being tired

next to nothing wrote:Well linux won Hollywood already, being the dominant OS for 3D-rendering/Effects, so the "not-pro" bit isnt exactly true...

the point is that Linux (and obviously it's 'programmers') handle server oriented stuff pretty well.
If the target is networking, routing or a render farm doesn't make a big difference.

But as soon as it gets to workflow or putting a handful of parts together under a user (!) oriented interface they just fail - the majority of developers seems to have severe problems to think context...
otherwise we'd already see (at least some) existing solutions - the OS isn't exactly brand-new...

from my own experience (non-Linux tho) I can tell you I have written a pretty smart search engine (if I may say so...), all in about 10-20 pages of script code.
It wasn't easy, due to a high degree of abstraction, but nevertheless the process was rather straight-forward.
I could adress the very same engine via CGI from a web-interface but wrapping querys and formatted output in an appealing interface is a multiple of the original effort, at least 4 times as demanding.

cheers, Tom

Its no problem to run linux on the rendering farm, using another OS for their "Desktops". But from what i am able to read, Linux is also the dominating OS on the desktop side. And regarding user interface, this is maya running on Linux in 2001.





Things have improved later on as well, and KDE is looking pretty sexy as well.

You will sometimes need to insert a line of text in a textfile if you add some hardware, tho many, maybe most cases even that is not nececary.

It is of course up to the software developers to support the OS. If steinbug and all the others was willing to put some effort in it, we could have had the choice to run our DAWs on free OSes allready. just as you can relatively effortlessly run the most CAD/3D modelling software.

If you can afford Maya then why not run it on a Mac which as I understand is Unix based or am I missing something?

Music always takes a back seat to visual arts. When was the last time a composer got top billing over an actor in a movie?

Thanks Ken for the explanation..

braincell wrote:If you can afford Maya then why not run it on a Mac which as I understand is Unix based or am I missing something?

I know maya is expensive, but running it on linux cuts the expenses. Also, you are more free to run it on whatever hardware you want (as long as it supports linux ofcourse, which most GFX hardware does).

braincell wrote:Music always takes a back seat to visual arts. When was the last time a composer got top billing over an actor in a movie?

Wrong comparison as i see it. You should compare it to the GFX/CGI department. Also, musicians/artists gets royalties from soundtracks.

well, the true power of graphics and linux is because most production houses have in house engineers who write custom software for animation/FX, etc. And linux makes it extremely simple since everything is practically running in a developer's environment. But again, this is with a full team of phd math freaks who can sit down and implement the differential equation to drive a particle system to simulate a ocean + the water vapor created from strong winds on waves.. all in a day's work. (k, I'm exaggerating) It's not something all individual users can benefit from.

In the end, it boils down to the trade off between tweakability (programability) and functionality versus ease of use and the lack of functionality. Linux always tends to lean towards ultimate tweakability and ultimate functionality, but trading off almost all usability. A powerful team of geniuses (with lots of free time) can cover that, but not everyone can afford that.