Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Louigi Verona wrote: > Paul, not to derail the conversation, but can you give us a little detail > on what kind of problems happen in scenarios outside of the desktop > environment? I am just curious. > building and installing JACK was hard. making it work with the audio chipset was hard (no duplex mode, or asymmetric parameters required) RT kernels are hard, sometimes. the command line is obscure. the manual page isn't (wasn't?) accurate. which version of JACK to use. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
Paul, not to derail the conversation, but can you give us a little detail on what kind of problems happen in scenarios outside of the desktop environment? I am just curious. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Markus Seeber < markus.see...@spectralbird.de> wrote: > On 09/23/2016 05:13 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > > The last time I was working with such a person was deeply illustrative: a > > small technology company doing audio on raspberry pi and beagle boards. > > Using JACK. Having an insanely hard time even getting it work. Even with > me > > sitting in with them. Their experience is common. Maybe even the norm. We > > never targetted JACK for such uses (focusing on desktop scenarios). > > Developers think it is cool, was developed on the same OS as they are > > running their new embedded platforms - awesome! Except ... not so much. > > > Exactly what I have experienced. It is all well for prototypes and for > testing out stuff, > but when things become serious, it all falls apart and people may notice, > that jack is not even a good fit for their usecase which may be better fit > by a small custom application. > > Also people have a hard time understanding even the "basic" concepts, > for various reasons. > > I have seen someone trying to build a simple processing chain for > streaming audio > and setting up a proprietary application as a JACK client. > That was interesting to watch. It took quite some time for him to learn > how to even build, install and use JACK > in a meaningful way, even with me providing some help. In the end it > worked out for testing > and evaluation purposes but I'd never seriously consider that ready for > production usage. > > This may sound harsh, but this stuff is simply not a nice choice for > mainstream production use > and so are many things in the LAU universe. > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On 09/23/2016 05:13 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > The last time I was working with such a person was deeply illustrative: a > small technology company doing audio on raspberry pi and beagle boards. > Using JACK. Having an insanely hard time even getting it work. Even with me > sitting in with them. Their experience is common. Maybe even the norm. We > never targetted JACK for such uses (focusing on desktop scenarios). > Developers think it is cool, was developed on the same OS as they are > running their new embedded platforms - awesome! Except ... not so much. > Exactly what I have experienced. It is all well for prototypes and for testing out stuff, but when things become serious, it all falls apart and people may notice, that jack is not even a good fit for their usecase which may be better fit by a small custom application. Also people have a hard time understanding even the "basic" concepts, for various reasons. I have seen someone trying to build a simple processing chain for streaming audio and setting up a proprietary application as a JACK client. That was interesting to watch. It took quite some time for him to learn how to even build, install and use JACK in a meaningful way, even with me providing some help. In the end it worked out for testing and evaluation purposes but I'd never seriously consider that ready for production usage. This may sound harsh, but this stuff is simply not a nice choice for mainstream production use and so are many things in the LAU universe. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Patrick Shirkey < pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > > > Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and > > promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority > > of developers and users. > > > > If this is correct the trick appears to be having strong brand awareness > and releasing the API on github? > strong brand awareness is hard and often costly. especially in a world as absurdly competitive as the DAW-related market. how many competitors does Photoshop have? how many viable, amazing DAWs are there? > > I don't know how many but if they have gone to the trouble of creating the > port then all they have to do is package and release it. Wrong. > They don't even > really need to invest in marketing it because we do that for them. > You have to be kidding me. > > The issue is not how to deploy but when to deploy. Sorry, no. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey < > pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest >> parts >> >>> of >> >>> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo). >> >> What? >> >> >> >> I repeat: that's not an innovation. >> > >> > Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation? >> > >> > Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link >> is >> > momentum behind it, along with the apple-style dictated protocol: take >> > it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design >> > discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and >> more >> > like a floss-like benevolent dictator style (think jack, or LV2). >> > >> > The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually >> does >> > closed-source proprietary software publishes an API and reference >> > implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too. >> > >> > That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! >> > >> > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, >> > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the >> > hard part. >> > >> >> Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source >> projects leading the field in other markets. >> > > There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user > visible software applications. > > And in terms of non-end-user visible software applications, Linux has > permeated just as deeply into pro audio as anywhere else (perhaps even > more > so). > > > >> >> There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes >> contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without >> having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights. >> > > No matter what Ableton or anyone may or may not write, you cannot release > something under GPLv2 and retain "explicit ownership/control", and > branding > rights are of limited value in this domain. > > > >> >> Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the >> Linux >> Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we >> still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players? >> > > Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and > promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority > of developers and users. > If this is correct the trick appears to be having strong brand awareness and releasing the API on github? > Do you have any idea how many companies I've interacted who are 100% aware > of JACK (and maybe even a little in awe of some of what it can do) and may > even have developed versions of their software that use it, but that > cannot > figure out how they could ever deploy them? > I don't know how many but if they have gone to the trouble of creating the port then all they have to do is package and release it. They don't even really need to invest in marketing it because we do that for them. The issue is not how to deploy but when to deploy. The generous POV is that everyone except Harrison is still waiting for the market to "mature". The cynical POV is that something is actively stopping them from taking the plunge. According to some reports it's a good way to make some extra cash money without having to actually release anything publicly. Just mentioning that you have a Linux port is enough to get the funds flowing for "alternate" development priorities. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Patrick Shirkey < pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > > > One can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence at hand. > You don't have any evidence other than the absence of evidence. > > > > > How many times is it necessary for someone to explain that JACK and AL > are > > NOT competing APIs ? > > > > Sorry, if I can't just trust you on that statement. Only time will tell > but from my perspective they are currently in an aggressive position > against JACK. > Rui explained in a reasonably level of technical detail why this is so. Your belief about this is just wrong. You also conflate JACK transport (the only part of JACK that has even the slightest connection with AL) with JACK itself. From the point of developers, these are two wholly different things. There are lots and lots of JACK-aware applications that do not use JACK transport. > They haven't made any public announcements to the contrary, corrections or > retractions and they certainly haven't released a Linux port of AL so as > far as I (and I presume many others) are concerned the statement still > stands. The proof is in the pudding really. > Aaww poor thing. A company doesn't release a version of its flagship product on your preferred platform and so they are evil. > If Harrison, Autodesk and others CAN do it then why "CAN'T" Ableton > especially now that they are "apparently" embracing Open Source, devoting > resources and even have some "good will" from some highly regarded Linux > Audio Developers. > and won't that be valuable. Yeah, LAD developers ... we've got the goods everyone else wants. Please Patrick, give it a break. We're a tiny niche inside a tiny niche. If you actually spent time with the people who work for NI, Ableton, Waves, Steinberg, and many more, you'd know that they are well aware of the audio technology on Linux BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO USE IT (much). Can you wrap your head around this basic concept? They came, they saw, they moved on? The last time I was working with such a person was deeply illustrative: a small technology company doing audio on raspberry pi and beagle boards. Using JACK. Having an insanely hard time even getting it work. Even with me sitting in with them. Their experience is common. Maybe even the norm. We never targetted JACK for such uses (focusing on desktop scenarios). Developers think it is cool, was developed on the same OS as they are running their new embedded platforms - awesome! Except ... not so much. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Patrick Shirkey > > wrote: > >> >> I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux >> Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to >> justify committing more resources to the platform. >> > > You have no idea what their marketing department has decided. Admit it. > One can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence at hand. > >> >> However JACK also runs on the other two main platforms so what is their >> rational behind completely ignoring it altogether while committing >> resources to creating a competing API? >> > > How many times is it necessary for someone to explain that JACK and AL are > NOT competing APIs ? > Sorry, if I can't just trust you on that statement. Only time will tell but from my perspective they are currently in an aggressive position against JACK. > >> >> Keep in mind that they have explicitly stated that Ableton Live will >> NEVER >> run on Linux. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that highly regarded >> people from this community are proposing to add support for the new >> protocol and at the same time questioning why there is (still) >> antagonism >> towards Ableton. >> > > I have no idea what statement you are referring to, but if I was to guess > it might be when Gerhard Behles, one of the company's (and software's) > founders was at LAC in Berlin in 2007. Which means basically before > Android > took over the world and Chromebooks and ... > To paraphrase Peter Pan, "NEVER is an awfully long time..." They haven't made any public announcements to the contrary, corrections or retractions and they certainly haven't released a Linux port of AL so as far as I (and I presume many others) are concerned the statement still stands. The proof is in the pudding really. Quite simply: Do they have an official Linux port? Do they officially support JACK? Now that it is cool to release Open Source products they appear to have jumped on the band wagon but until they actually bite the bullet and release their Linux port of AL and integrate with JACK on all platforms then it shouldn't offend anyone if I am (or anyone else from round here is) suspicious of their intentions. > If so, this is a statement that is getting on for a decade of aging, and > it > is absurd to view this as policy. You have absolutely no idea what Ableton > is and is not doing with Linux, or what its policies (if there are indeed > any) toward Linux are. I suggest you regard that statement as a bit of > off-its-time sensible marketing wisdom from nearly a decade ago, and move > on. > > >> >> Other proprietary companies have no problems releasing their software to >> run on Linux. > > > And many others are NOT. So what would that mean? (that's a rhetorical > question) > If Harrison, Autodesk and others CAN do it then why "CAN'T" Ableton especially now that they are "apparently" embracing Open Source, devoting resources and even have some "good will" from some highly regarded Linux Audio Developers. Seems like a marketing blunder on their part in regards to winning hearts and minds in the overall Linux sector but other people view the situation with more sinister implications. On the flipside if adopting Link into the Linux Audio Stack means Ableton feels more committed to LINUX and makes some tangible movements in this direction then we might have a publicity coup on our hands. However I'm not betting on that outcome due to their record so far. IMO, the time/effort required to support Link across the board could be better spent on fixing the looping issue in JACK. If/When there is some momentum for Link adoption I will update the Linux Audio Stack diagram to maintain transparency but I am not sold on the real value of Link to Linux Audio at this point. Seems like a one sided affair where they get brand promotion without having to actually commit to Linux Audio. Or to quote from Captain Hook this time "Bad form Peter". -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > > > There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user > visible software applications. > oops. except for web browsers. > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux > Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to > justify committing more resources to the platform. > You have no idea what their marketing department has decided. Admit it. > > However JACK also runs on the other two main platforms so what is their > rational behind completely ignoring it altogether while committing > resources to creating a competing API? > How many times is it necessary for someone to explain that JACK and AL are NOT competing APIs ? > > Keep in mind that they have explicitly stated that Ableton Live will NEVER > run on Linux. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that highly regarded > people from this community are proposing to add support for the new > protocol and at the same time questioning why there is (still) antagonism > towards Ableton. > I have no idea what statement you are referring to, but if I was to guess it might be when Gerhard Behles, one of the company's (and software's) founders was at LAC in Berlin in 2007. Which means basically before Android took over the world and Chromebooks and ... If so, this is a statement that is getting on for a decade of aging, and it is absurd to view this as policy. You have absolutely no idea what Ableton is and is not doing with Linux, or what its policies (if there are indeed any) toward Linux are. I suggest you regard that statement as a bit of off-its-time sensible marketing wisdom from nearly a decade ago, and move on. > > Other proprietary companies have no problems releasing their software to > run on Linux. And many others are NOT. So what would that mean? (that's a rhetorical question) ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey < pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > > > On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >> [...] > >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts > >>> of > >>> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo). > >> What? > >> > >> I repeat: that's not an innovation. > > > > Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation? > > > > Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link is > > momentum behind it, along with the apple-style dictated protocol: take > > it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design > > discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and more > > like a floss-like benevolent dictator style (think jack, or LV2). > > > > The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually does > > closed-source proprietary software publishes an API and reference > > implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too. > > > > That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! > > > > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, > > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the > > hard part. > > > > Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source > projects leading the field in other markets. > There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user visible software applications. And in terms of non-end-user visible software applications, Linux has permeated just as deeply into pro audio as anywhere else (perhaps even more so). > > There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes > contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without > having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights. > No matter what Ableton or anyone may or may not write, you cannot release something under GPLv2 and retain "explicit ownership/control", and branding rights are of limited value in this domain. > > Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the Linux > Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we > still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players? > Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority of developers and users. Do you have any idea how many companies I've interacted who are 100% aware of JACK (and maybe even a little in awe of some of what it can do) and may even have developed versions of their software that use it, but that cannot figure out how they could ever deploy them? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Tito Latini wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:36:17PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tito Latini > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > > > The innovation is defining an API and protocol based on 3 concepts: > > > > > > > > tempo synchronization > > > > > > an integral to get the position with the new bpm > > > > > > > across a network? with multiple tempo masters? > > I respectfully think you don't understand the technical problem. > [ description ] and yet ... no such protocol exists. so it must all be very easy, particularly the part about gaining widespread adoption, and yet nobody has done it, despite 30 years of protocols like MIDI Clock, MIDI timecode, LTC and more. puzzling, eh? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
"IMO anyone who doesn't know about JACK and claims to be a professional audio developer has dubious credentials." I think this is an unfounded statement. Many professional audio developers work on Windows with ASIO and are both professional and some of them definitely unaware of JACK. "Keep in mind that they have explicitly stated that Ableton Live will NEVER run on Linux." Can you please link to this statement? On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > >> That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! > >> > >> Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, > >> pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the > >> hard part. > > > > I agree with this. This thread has been a little bit agressive and I > > don't really understand why. > > > > From my point of view, integration with AL will probably have > > interesting side effects among all musical applications. Imagine > > jam/performance sessions with musicians combining many different DAWs > > and loopers running on multiple platforms. > > > > The whole point of such a protocol as they've developed it is to > > increase creativity and to open up possibilities for collaboration and > > new musical ideas. Isn't that one of the reasons we like to hangout on > > mailing lists like this one? > > > > Some us us disagree that this IS the "whole point" of Link. > > IMO anyone who doesn't know about JACK and claims to be a professional > audio developer has dubious credentials. In addition there are other > existing API's as Tito has explained that predate Link. > > Given the fractured history that Ableton has with Open Source development > and Linux support it should not come as a surprise to anyone on this list > that there is some disagreement over the validity of their release process > / marketing campaign. > > I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux > Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to > justify committing more resources to the platform. > > However JACK also runs on the other two main platforms so what is their > rational behind completely ignoring it altogether while committing > resources to creating a competing API? > > Keep in mind that they have explicitly stated that Ableton Live will NEVER > run on Linux. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that highly regarded > people from this community are proposing to add support for the new > protocol and at the same time questioning why there is (still) antagonism > towards Ableton. > > Other proprietary companies have no problems releasing their software to > run on Linux. For example Flame (Autodesk) runs perfectly fine on Linux as > does Vmware, Oracle, etc... Even the Tesla cars are running Linux for > their multimedia systems. Steam has their own Linux Distribution. It's > not like it there is no precedence for Ableton to release a binary only > Linux port. More so if they genuinely want Linux Audio Developers to > support their profit margins and integrate our software/platform with > their product(s) at our expense/time/resources. > > Of course everyone is free to do what they want but don't try to pretend > that it's a shock that some of us are not enthused about this new product. > That comes across as lack of insight or outright BS. > > > > -- > Patrick Shirkey > Boost Hardware Ltd > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:00:08 +0200, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: >>> That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! >>> >>> Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, >>> pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the >>> hard part. >> >> The whole point of such a protocol as they've developed it is to >> increase creativity and to open up possibilities for collaboration >> and new musical ideas. Isn't that one of the reasons we like to >> hangout on mailing lists like this one? > >Some us us disagree that this IS the "whole point" of Link. >From my user point of view I welcome Linux apps integrating Ableton Link. Actually I don't know if I really need it, but it doesn't harm to have the opportunity to use it. Some subscribers explained that it's not just another way to sync by one master and several slaves. I've got a question. If I e.g. have one device at 180 BPM and another at 90 BPM, they both could keep the their own tempo and would play in sync? This double/half speed thing is a common MIDI sync issue. Regards, Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: >> That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! >> >> Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, >> pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the >> hard part. > > I agree with this. This thread has been a little bit agressive and I > don't really understand why. > > From my point of view, integration with AL will probably have > interesting side effects among all musical applications. Imagine > jam/performance sessions with musicians combining many different DAWs > and loopers running on multiple platforms. > > The whole point of such a protocol as they've developed it is to > increase creativity and to open up possibilities for collaboration and > new musical ideas. Isn't that one of the reasons we like to hangout on > mailing lists like this one? > Some us us disagree that this IS the "whole point" of Link. IMO anyone who doesn't know about JACK and claims to be a professional audio developer has dubious credentials. In addition there are other existing API's as Tito has explained that predate Link. Given the fractured history that Ableton has with Open Source development and Linux support it should not come as a surprise to anyone on this list that there is some disagreement over the validity of their release process / marketing campaign. I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to justify committing more resources to the platform. However JACK also runs on the other two main platforms so what is their rational behind completely ignoring it altogether while committing resources to creating a competing API? Keep in mind that they have explicitly stated that Ableton Live will NEVER run on Linux. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that highly regarded people from this community are proposing to add support for the new protocol and at the same time questioning why there is (still) antagonism towards Ableton. Other proprietary companies have no problems releasing their software to run on Linux. For example Flame (Autodesk) runs perfectly fine on Linux as does Vmware, Oracle, etc... Even the Tesla cars are running Linux for their multimedia systems. Steam has their own Linux Distribution. It's not like it there is no precedence for Ableton to release a binary only Linux port. More so if they genuinely want Linux Audio Developers to support their profit margins and integrate our software/platform with their product(s) at our expense/time/resources. Of course everyone is free to do what they want but don't try to pretend that it's a shock that some of us are not enthused about this new product. That comes across as lack of insight or outright BS. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! > > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the > hard part. I agree with this. This thread has been a little bit agressive and I don't really understand why. >From my point of view, integration with AL will probably have interesting side effects among all musical applications. Imagine jam/performance sessions with musicians combining many different DAWs and loopers running on multiple platforms. The whole point of such a protocol as they've developed it is to increase creativity and to open up possibilities for collaboration and new musical ideas. Isn't that one of the reasons we like to hangout on mailing lists like this one? /Daniel ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:36:17PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > > The innovation is defining an API and protocol based on 3 concepts: > > > > > > tempo synchronization > > > > an integral to get the position with the new bpm > > > > across a network? with multiple tempo masters? I respectfully think you don't understand the technical problem. We send/receive informations about the time, the change of the tempo and/or the position of a beat, the updated number of the participants, the time window to get the next temporal change, a message "too soon" to discard or defer a change, the minimal time window, latency, etc, but not the performance of the change. That's a protocol. The integral is software-side, not across the network. It's not always necessary because it depends on the musical instrument. For example, a string quartet uses a particular curve to change the tempo; the curve is possibly different with pizzicato; a drum machine plays in ritardo or fills the time window with a roll. The modus operandi is arbitrary for an application, the network is used to share the information about the clock and the possible changes (start-time, end-time, from-bpm, to-bpm, from-position, to-beat, etc). Under the hood, the synchronization of the beat is the change of a local bpm. For example, tempo-change + beat alignment is a combination of two integrals (software-side) if the instrument plays accelerando or ritardando. The coder of the program/library is responsible of the curve-palette and the optimization. One common protocol to communicate, many programs/libraries to play. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
