Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ardour 8.0

ardour.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: Ardour 8.0

#11

Post by 6581 »

codedokode wrote: post #9

Ardour's UI is complicated compared to, for example, Ableton Live. For example, I have added a MIDI track and it is unclear how to add notes to it. Right clicking on a track doesn't give an option to do that. Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats (LV2, Linux VST), for which there are little plugins.

> I have added a MIDI track and it is unclear how to add notes to it. Right clicking on a track doesn't give an option to do that.

https://manual.ardour.org/working-with-midi/create-midi-regi...

https://manual.ardour.org/working-with-midi/add-new-notes/

> Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats (LV2, Linux VST)

https://github.com/robbert-vdh/yabridge

Re: Ardour 8.0

#12

Post by ninjin »

OliverM wrote: post #8
diggan wrote: post #2

Looks to be a extensive update with lots of new and useful features, thanks as always PaulDavisThe1st :) Especially Arrangement and Quick Groups will be good time savers for me! > For several years, people downloading Ardour for macOS have had to deal with various kinds of messages (from Apple) saying things like "This program comes from an untrusted source" to "The file is damaged". As of Ardour 8, macOS users downl…

I thought Ardour was a commercial product? If you want to download a binary from their site it's either a demo version with injected silence every 10 minutes, or a paid-for option (either a small monthly sub or a larger one-off payment). You can build it locally yourself for free of course, but I don't know if many non-devs would do that.

It is not really a commercial product, rather it follows an old, but somewhat rare, tradition of making usage slightly more difficult in order to raise funds. OpenBSD used to do the same and not provide pre-built images to raise funds via CD sales from those that could not be bothered to learn how to build images from the source code. You can certainly object to this, but I do find it reasonable as there are few good ways to fund open source software.

As for Ardour itself, it is clearly completely open source [1].

https://git.ardour.org/ardour/ardour/src/branch/master/COPYI...

Re: Ardour 8.0

#13

Post by frankzander »

codedokode wrote: post #9

Ardour's UI is complicated compared to, for example, Ableton Live. For example, I have added a MIDI track and it is unclear how to add notes to it. Right clicking on a track doesn't give an option to do that. Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats (LV2, Linux VST), for which there are little plugins.

I many times used Ableton ... tbh it's not less complicated then Ardour. You can use yabridge for Win vsts ... works quite good for the most plugins IMHO but on kx.studio you find a hell lot of Linux native plugins ... don't look as fancy as commercial ones but they do what they should do. Music production in Linux is often a bit more hackyhack but it's ok so far. At least this are all tools ... using them is the real art behind that.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#14

Post by codedokode »

weavie wrote: post #10
codedokode wrote: post #9

Ardour's UI is complicated compared to, for example, Ableton Live. For example, I have added a MIDI track and it is unclear how to add notes to it. Right clicking on a track doesn't give an option to do that. Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats (LV2, Linux VST), for which there are little plugins.

If it supports VST, I imagine yabridge would work fine to allow you to use Windows VST. https://github.com/robbert-vdh/yabridge

Looks like a pain to install (doesn't support Fedora 37, isn't included in standard Fedora repositories, requires to use non-standard Wine version).

Re: Ardour 8.0

#15

Post by 6581 »

OliverM wrote: post #8
diggan wrote: post #2

Looks to be a extensive update with lots of new and useful features, thanks as always PaulDavisThe1st :) Especially Arrangement and Quick Groups will be good time savers for me! > For several years, people downloading Ardour for macOS have had to deal with various kinds of messages (from Apple) saying things like "This program comes from an untrusted source" to "The file is damaged". As of Ardour 8, macOS users downl…

I thought Ardour was a commercial product? If you want to download a binary from their site it's either a demo version with injected silence every 10 minutes, or a paid-for option (either a small monthly sub or a larger one-off payment). You can build it locally yourself for free of course, but I don't know if many non-devs would do that.

> I thought Ardour was a commercial product?

Ardour is licensed under GPLv2.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#16

Post by BlueTemplar »

auggierose wrote: post #6
diggan wrote: post #2

Looks to be a extensive update with lots of new and useful features, thanks as always PaulDavisThe1st :) Especially Arrangement and Quick Groups will be good time savers for me! > For several years, people downloading Ardour for macOS have had to deal with various kinds of messages (from Apple) saying things like "This program comes from an untrusted source" to "The file is damaged". As of Ardour 8, macOS users downl…

I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility paying for this software than Linux users. $100 compared to the development resources that went into this is nothing, and the developers realised that, too.

It's more a matter of principle ?

IMHO it should be illegal (for a for-profit corporation) to own both the OS and an application store (at least the kind featuring third-party software) - you cannot expect them to be a fair judge of who gets in there and who doesn't !

Re: Ardour 8.0

#17

Post by tomduncalf »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #16
auggierose wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility paying for this software than Linux users. $100 compared to the development resources that went into this is nothing, and the developers realised that, too.

It's more a matter of principle ? IMHO it should be illegal (for a for-profit corporation) to own both the OS and an application store (at least the kind featuring third-party software) - you cannot expect them to be a fair judge of who gets in there and who doesn't !

You can still run the software, but Apple make it harder to do so (you probably have to Google how to do it). You could argue this both ways, I think there's value to the defaults making it harder for your average user to run software which could be unsafe... just think how bad the malware problem used to be on Windows for example.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#18

Post by globular-toast »

ninjin wrote: post #12
OliverM wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Ardour was a commercial product? If you want to download a binary from their site it's either a demo version with injected silence every 10 minutes, or a paid-for option (either a small monthly sub or a larger one-off payment). You can build it locally yourself for free of course, but I don't know if many non-devs would do that.

It is not really a commercial product, rather it follows an old, but somewhat rare, tradition of making usage slightly more difficult in order to raise funds. OpenBSD used to do the same and not provide pre-built images to raise funds via CD sales from those that could not be bothered to learn how to build images from the source code. You can certainly object to this, but I do find it reasonable as there are few good…

You're talking about orthogonal concepts.

Ardour is free software (and therefore open source). Ardour is not proprietary software.

Ardour is a commercial product. They sell pre-built binaries, updates (perhaps some level of guarantee/support for those binaries?) etc. Ardour is not "freeware", shareware or a hobby project or anything else like that.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#19

Post by rednab »

Ardour is GPLv2 open-source, but they still do somewhat pointedly attempt to dissuade you from building from source ¹).

Now, I fully understand why. And I think charging for pre-built binaries is a totally valid way to attempt to finance an open-source project. The amount they're asking certainly is a pittance compared to the commercial offerings.

But LMMS just feels friendlier to me.

¹) https://ardour.org/building_linux.html

Re: Ardour 8.0

#20

Post by OliverM »

ninjin wrote: post #12
OliverM wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Ardour was a commercial product? If you want to download a binary from their site it's either a demo version with injected silence every 10 minutes, or a paid-for option (either a small monthly sub or a larger one-off payment). You can build it locally yourself for free of course, but I don't know if many non-devs would do that.

It is not really a commercial product, rather it follows an old, but somewhat rare, tradition of making usage slightly more difficult in order to raise funds. OpenBSD used to do the same and not provide pre-built images to raise funds via CD sales from those that could not be bothered to learn how to build images from the source code. You can certainly object to this, but I do find it reasonable as there are few good…

I don't object to it at all, I think it's a great idea. We need more models of supporting open-source, including financial ones. BTW I also don't see commercial and open-source as intrinsically opposed to each other - projects can be both, and I wish more were.
Post reply on HN