Len Moskowitz wrote:
"Simon Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But where would they have been now if they had taken the fully
open route? Somewhere better? Somewhere worse? Where could
a hypothetical competitor who started now, from scratch, with a
fully open model get to? Would they catch up
I guess stability is not an issue?
> To attract commercial attention, a Linux audio application would have to
> offer either a unique feature (or group of features) that's commercially
> attractive or a significant customer base unreached by Windows/OS products.
>
>
> Len Moskowitz
> Core Sound
Paul Davis wrote:
If they're unable or unwilling to tell the difference between "free
software" and "software that is written for free" then there's
probably never going to be a linux sdk for their hardware. Its just
too specialised and complex for someone to do it for free, or to
modify anythin
Paul Davis wrote:
Like the soundart chamelon http://www.soundart-hot.com/
[ ... ]
[ ... ]
Maybe they, or someone like them, could sell more hardware if they "let go"
of the software? (They'd certainly sell one to me). And that's how they
actually
make their money, right? By making har
Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 07:15:02AM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Audio-related examples might include things like:
Making a multi effects rack unit with pro-audio i/o, a heap of DSP
power, front panel display and controls, and filling it with the
pick of the available open
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 07:06:47PM -0500, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
not true. And of course, there is the whole (somewhat
discredited by present economic circumstances) argument that you *can*
make money of off free software.
there are some business models that s
Len Moskowitz wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>People here invest their time and effort (but usually not money for
>promotion), mostly because they're techies who want to to build
>something that they really need/want. Businesses invest money for
>another reason, because they want to develop and
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Peter L Jones wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 Oct 2002 17:42, Paul Winkler wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > I can't answer this properly, but there is some issue to with mmap mode I
> > > believe. It is a very small number of cards that d
Len wrote:
>> >If you will be making money from a Linux-based product, then you
>> >*should* be investing your own money for promotion.
>>
>> I am. What's your point?
>Other people (people who are not in business) need not and likely won't
>invest money to promote Linux Audio.
>People here inves
Paul Winkler wrote:
>I can certainly sympathize with that one. Supposedly there is some work
>being done on supporting USB audio devices under ALSA; that may be our
>best hope. (Yes, I know USB has potentiall horrible latency. )
I have just this morning been able to get a pure ecasound sine wave
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Peter L Jones wrote:
> When I run latencytest0.42-png from [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get about 99% sub
> 2ms latency. But jack still complains of xruns of about 50ms. There's
> something here I'm simply failing to understand... but I don't know where to
Are you running JACK a
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Peter L Jones wrote:
> I don't want to have to learn about DSPs and stuff to be able to identify a
> _good_ sound card. I've currently got a shortlist for my next machine:
> * MidiMan Delta Audiophile 2496 (Envy24)
> * Creative SB PCI 128 (ES1371)
I've used both of thes
Peter wrote:
>On Tuesday 22 Oct 2002 17:42, Paul Winkler wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
>> > I can't answer this properly, but there is some issue to with mmap
>mode I
>> > believe. It is a very small number of cards that dont work.
>>
>>> We should compil
Eric wrote:
>it is also pretty much useless for general users. I mean if I can't
>listen to mp3 and browse the web at the same time ... (without sound
>servers which were discussed recently and as far as I can tell the
>general consensus is that they are bad and not to be used).
This is a misco
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Paul Davis wrote:
> JACK *isn't* intended for general use, and i get tired of suggestions
> that it should be. there are lots of people working on solutions for
> "general use". JACK is intended for people who are serious about
> audio.
I'd like to add that not all JACK devel
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Conrad Parker wrote:
> it might save you some hassles if you changed the intro to jack's web
> pages, which currently read:
>
> JACK is a low-latency audio server, written primarily for the
> GNU/Linux operating system. It can connect a number of different
> appli
While jack isn't intended for general use, it definitely isn't hard to use
at all. It's a fantastic piece of software - easy to use (and even easier
to write applications that use it). It's one of the best things that ever
happened for linux audio.
Perhaps Peter is having trouble getting jackd runn
Steve Harris said something like:
> We run the risk of annoying people by starting an ad campaign now.
This didn't sit with me when I read it. Now I think I know why.
Why should we let these people who could get annoyed wait for us to
polish the products to perfection. If they want to use them
18 matches
Mail list logo
