On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 08:33:46PM -0700, Paul Davis wrote: > However, in this particular case, I'd beg to differ. Reaper is > available at low cost, and is at least as malleable for regular users > as any FLOSS project, if not more so. Maybe I'm not a regular user. Reaper was the last proprietary DAW that I tried before deciding to abandon proprietary software. Lots of people raved about it. I did not find it a fun experience. (Unfixable problems with the proprietary drivers for the Focusrite Saffire soundcard I had at the time, and hours spent fruitlessly with their tech support, only compounded the annoyance.) > Basically, what I'm saying is: love FLOSS software because it works > for you, and (if applicable) because you love software freedom. If it > is truly superior to proprietary software, then by all means say so > (loudly!), but let's never forget that most music production software > is written by people just as enthusiastic as anyone in this community > about creating truly useful and excellent tools. They just chose a > different licensing model .... I no longer think the licensing model can be separated from the usefulness of the tool. I came to love software freedom not because of my idealism, but because of my pragmatism. I previously spent hundreds of bucks buying, and hundreds of hours using, mainstream proprietary audio software. Eventually, I tired of its systemic shortcomings. Several pieces of proprietary audio software for which I bought licenses had EULAs (and DRM, in some cases) that severely restricted how I could use them as tools. For instance, keeping an old version installed (to retain access to *old* effects) was often disallowed, if one also wished to have the latest version (e.g. for access to *new* effects!). So, the user has to choose: would you like to: - be able to work with your old projects, as you originally mixed them? Or do you instead want to: - be able to use new DAW features and new plugins, even if that means losing access to your old projects (and old effects) essentially forever? That's license-imposed dependency hell! It's a huge loss of usability. It's much less likely to be a problem with Free (libre) Software, where one can often just modify the makefiles or similar in order to achieve multiple concurrent installs of different versions of the same package. Also, proprietary software seems more commonly tied to proprietary operating systems. I spent years using Wavelab very happily as my main audio/wave editor, but Windows became creepier and creepier. And I couldn't give up Windows without also giving up Wavelab. Additionally, proprietary software's denial of access to the source code makes it impossible to tell by oneself whether, for example, a particular behaviour of the software is intentional. Which means having to resort to tech support. Some popular proprietary music software has high bug counts and poor tech support - considering how much their licenses cost - which means more time away from making music, and more time at the mercy of the companies who sell the software. Summing up: even if the developers of proprietary audio software are, as you say, just as enthusiastic about creating truly useful and excellent tools, that does not mean that their chosen outlet for that enthusiasm channels it as effectively - in my opinion - as libre software would. So, thank you again - sincerely - for making Ardour libre. Sam -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
