"Ivica Ico Bukvic" <ico@xxxxxxxx> writes: > First off, I must say I am very flattered by your interest in my opinion. > That being said, I am sure that Stanford (CCRMA) has something like it as > well as Eastman, University of Virginia, and perhaps even Columbia. Also > many other institutions that do electroacoustic music do some open-source > stuff albeit many of them do OS X exclusively. Apple enjoys strong patronage > from the academic community even though it poses as an oxymoronic solution > to those who seek true "freedom of expression" through use of their > computers. In part, this is the case (IMHO) because OS X offers superficial > ease of use coupled with eye-candy which is usually good enough for most > people. Not optimal, but good enough. OS X is not *that* bad. Like you, I much prefer the free-speech aspects of GNU/Linux. But, we should never underestimate the competition. Apple has a strong following among professional musicians, because there are many excellent audio applications which install and work on it with few problems. The realtime performance is quite impressive right out of the box, without the days or weeks of tuning we do to get comparable response with Linux. Most musicians don't want to spend their time "fiddling with computers". Lately, OS X has evolved into an adequate (not great) platform for open software. Most Linux audio applications either already run on it, or can probably be ported with modest effort. There is still a large gap in hardware price/performance, but many musicians consider that worth the time they save. -- joq
