Per aspera ad astra, jono. The phenomena you have with Linux audio software are not restricted to audio software. You have usually a longer time of getting to know the system, but once you're in it, its fairly easy to keep things running. I work as a developer for a software company, and from my experience I can tell that stability is the least thing they care for. It needs to be marketable, it needs to have new features, technical bugs can be fixed later, or not at all, if they are not that serious. But wording, graphics, message boxes, novice stuff, all this should be tuned up to the max so that many people are being tricked into buying the product. As a commercial software developer, you are the marketing departments tool. I have been using audio software under Windows for a long time. It's symptoms match the way of development described above: the software is easy to install and learn, but it crashes often and wastes huge amounts of CPU. Additionally, commercial competition creates an uncomfortable working environment for musicians, because things do not work together as tightly as they could. Any interface you get doesn't match the next one, because those companies do not communicate. There is no common underlying system wide library for a modular audio environment. You have to buy it indirectly through one of Steinbergs products. I don't think I have to go on and on about the disadvantages of the above mentioned development paradigm. As an open source developer, you are more or less your own boss. Therefore, what matters most to you is that the program is stable and efficient. That it has been designed to be interoperable. That it fits well into its environment. That a lot of things can be configured. Spare time developers do not have much time. And I guess they enjoy having the control. There is no marketing. A heavenly place. The result is, that installation and learning can become a bit rough, as with open source, you are usually entering the dark caves of infinite development. Most things look barebone, but they work very well from a developers perspective. GNU is heaven if you are a programmer or know something about the insides of development. There is lots of debug information. There is usually good documentation about the insides of a program. There are tons of API's. There is a bugtracker that responds to you. The popular GNU programs are a lot more stable than what I'm used to, once they run. And there is of course a good reason not to make programs in development too easy to access: a point of view that I like to call "pragmatic elitism". As it gets easier for untrained novices to enter the realms of an open source program, the quality of participation descends. Bug reports become unhelpful. Feature trackers become clogged with senseless ideas. Mailing lists burst with incompetence. It doesn't have to be like this, but from my experience I can tell that if you create software for simple minded people, you get simple minded feedback. As a developer, you feel a lot of frustration if this happens. It might stall or harm development tremendously. Think of GNU software as a kind of cockaigne, where the entrance is blocked by a big riddle. Once you have solved the riddle (and I am sure that you will make a lot of friends this way, because you _must_ participiate in the community in order to learn about something), you can enter the land of plenty. I hope that helps answering your questions. -- -- leonard "paniq" ritter -- http://www.paniq.org -- http://www.mjoo.org
