>This is a very complex matter. Linus Thorvald himself considers >linux not to be suited for audio or universally multimedia >applications. Low-latency cannot be achieved with current >kernels especially not multi-channel. > On top of that comes the fact, that a setup of linux is quite >simple today, but only if you don't leave the standard SuSE. >But this must be done to work with audio and midi. Therefore >hardly any sequencer manufacturer uses linux -- they fear the >tremendous support effort. (try to explain a user on the phone, >that he has to change a makefile and how he must compile the >sources ...) > Therefore there is no package that can hardly reach the level >of Cubase or Logic. > The driver support also is a problem. I have a great variety >of popular interfaces (audio and midi) but there is no linux >driver for one of them. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >I hope we are able to shape a convincing answer!
I think that his general tone is about 75% correct. The details, however, need improving: >This is a very complex matter. Linus Thorvald himself considers >linux not to be suited for audio or universally multimedia >applications. AFAIK, Linus has never said this. What he has said is that he doesn't want to incorporate patches into the kernel that improve Linux capabilities in this area *unless* they meet his design standards. However, what Linus thinks is not very important. Very few end users of Linux use a Linus kernel, they use one that comes from a distributor. Its therefore more important what *they* think, and they are generally much more inclined to support and distribute work that does make Linux ideal for audio and multimedia work. > Low-latency cannot be achieved with current >kernels especially not multi-channel. the 2.4 kernels shipped by RedHat and by SuSE already include the low latency patch, AFAIK. and these kernels have been shown to outperform everything except OS X in one test case (the famous study that OS X proponents are always quoting). > On top of that comes the fact, that a setup of linux is quite >simple today, but only if you don't leave the standard SuSE. >But this must be done to work with audio and midi. Therefore apt+synaptic+PlanetCCRMA makes this almost completely painless for RH users. Amazingly painless. Embarrassingly painless. Also, from what I gather, setting up a machine with Windows to do pro audio stuff is also very difficult, hence the emergence of "music PC" companies like Clarion (did I remember their name correctly?). OS X appears a bit better here, but thats inevitable when its a single-sourced hardware platform. >hardly any sequencer manufacturer uses linux -- they fear the >tremendous support effort. (try to explain a user on the phone, >that he has to change a makefile and how he must compile the >sources ...) This is just plain silly. Nobody would expect to provide end user support by telling them to recompile. End user support for binary packaged software will be done just like it is for MacOS and Windows. In addition, although I can't discuss names, several very significant names in the audio industry are extremely friendly toward Linux and see it as the best way forward for everyone, mostly because it would free them from the whims of OS manufacturers. > Therefore there is no package that can hardly reach the level >of Cubase or Logic. Which version of Cubase or Logic? Logic 6.0 only just got edit and mix groups, Ardour has had them for years (admittedly, they are not as useful as they could be). And what about post-fader FX? Anyway, sure, there are no packages matching SX or 6.0 at this time, but there are several that are at least as good as early releases of these programs, and they improve much faster than the commercial ones. They also have the benefit of having been designed today, rather than 5 years ago, and so they start off with the design assumptions of today's user (Nuendo/SX is an exception to this). And as a footnote, its not much use having a cool system like SX or Logic if your basic operating system is unstable or can't do other things you want to do with it. If I pay US$3K for a super-stable, super-fast audio optimized machine, I want to be able to do shoutcast streaming with it as well, run my studio etc. etc. Windows (by all accounts) is poor at this kind of stuff, though OS X appears much better. > The driver support also is a problem. I have a great variety >of popular interfaces (audio and midi) but there is no linux >driver for one of them. The ALSA soundcard matrix shows this to be a half-truth. There are a huge number of supported audio interfaces, from cheap consumer chipsets to high end pro audio devices. And almost any device for which the manufacturer is willing to give us the specs will get a driver written *for free* within a few weeks. But if the manufacturer has the silly idea that a device driver discloses proprietary information in a way that would otherwise be kept secret ... well, there's nothing we can do about that. Linux is an open source operating system, and ALSA is an open source driver architecture, and if companies don't want their hardware supported by such a system, that's their decision, not ours. Meanwhile, the many USB devices, AC97-ish chipsets, M-Audio/ice17XX and RME devices (among others) that ARE supported will continue to provide lots of choices for users at many levels.