> I do not think I have a clear opinion on this. And I would be very > interested for you, devs of audio software, to share your opinions. But > lately, > after having been quite tired by fighting the limitations linux audio has > today for making certain types of music, I've been wondering whether > some software is better off being proprietary. It might not be reviewed > code, but it works. And I don't really want anyone to be able to change > code of, say, FL Studio, because it is a great piece of software already. I > don't remember ever encountering a bug while working in it. > > Of course, I personally switched to Linux because of philosophical > principles. And now I find myself confused. Is it possible that some > software > is too complex, needs too tight a development and thus good funding to be > free? And instead needs to be proprietary to get things done? Any software, be it opensource or proprietary, needs someone in charge. If I modify some opensource package for my own use, that's my problem, but if I want to distribute the modification, I think it needs to go through a maintainer or moderator, just to keep things under some sort of control. Proprietary stuff, of course, keeps the whole thing closed tight. One can attempt to contact the proprietor with suggestions and feature requests. Some have open ears and minds, others, you bought it, good luck. Even without myself touching code, I have had loads of features incorporated into GPLed programs after suggesting to the (main) author. The mindset is simply different. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
