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

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: Ardour 8.0

#41

Post by heftig »

kuon wrote: post #28

I love ardour, I wish only for native Wayland support.

I believe most plugins expose their GUI only as an X window that needs to be nested in an application window, so any change here would require reimplementing the GUI of a lot of plugins.

But even if we do want to take this hurdle, is it even possible yet? What interfaces are available to do this on Wayland and embed a plugin-drawn GUI in a GTK 3, GTK 4, Qt 5 and/or Qt 6 application?

My guess is we still need a new spec that would probably revolve around OpenGL/EGL or Vulkan/WSI, but I'm not sure, and there's also the question of how input events are delivered.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#42

Post by jacquesm »

redserk wrote: post #30
schmorptron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I think it's perfectly fair to charge more for a mac version of a program, especially if it's a donation funded open-source one. If you can afford a macintosh, you're more likely to also be able to afford a couple of bucks to support it.

I'd be willing to bet the demographics of those on Hackernews aren't exactly in the "I'm using Linux because I cannot afford to use any other OS" crowd. It is the other way around. Linux users should be more vigilant about donating to the projects they find important if they care for the longevity of the project continuing as desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and has heavy fragmentation issues within it.

Seconded. I can afford any OS but I'm using Linux out of principle. It's also - at least for me - the most seamless developer experience out there because I'm running the same OS on servers and my desktop. Whenever I have to work with Windows or a Mac I feel like a fish out of the water.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#43

Post by globular-toast »

ninjin wrote: post #29
globular-toast wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure it is clear cut as you present it. Clearly Ardour the project is not a commercial product and the same should go for the source code. Arguably the pre-compiled binaries are a commercial product as they are presented to a market for a price (although the same of course does not hold for Ardour binaries provided through package managers and elsewhere). To me, the confusion mostly arises from the fact that…

Ardour certainly looks like a commercial project to me. I think this thinking arises from a couple of misapprehensions, namely:

1. Commerce is bad and somehow at odds with free software and the GPL,

2. The only way to do any kind of software trade is proprietary software.

In fact, commerce is beautiful and a cornerstone of economics and our civilisation. Most people in the free software community are not opposed to commerce. What they are opposed to is proprietary software. That is, claiming ownership of software and therefore doing commerce based mostly on rent-seeking and retaining power over said users. Free software and the GPL aims to disable this, but it does not disable, nor does it oppose, commercial software, unless you believe (2), which is evidently false, as you can see with Ardour.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#44

Post by radiowave »

throwaway290 wrote: post #22
JodieBenitez wrote: post #3

The screenshot features the excellent Surge synth. Check it out if you don't know it, it's an excellent sounding synth with a gorgeous oscillators section.

It's three times the size of the DAW itself, and unlike the DAW it requires using an installer during which it asks for admin password. Wow. Wonder what happened to "just drop this file into that dir" README.txt...

Putting a file into "that dir" also requires elevated permissions.

(e.g. C:\Program Files\VSTPlugins )

Re: Ardour 8.0

#45

Post by jacquesm »

rspoerri wrote: post #40
jacquesm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also available as a pre-build product to pay for Show me where to pay for the pre-built product: https://community.ardour.org/download?platform=linux&archite... All I see is a direct download link. If you want to pay that's optional.

Have you pressed that button? """ Subscribe $1, $4, $10 or $50 per month ... """ """ Single Payment If you choose to pay less than US$45 ... """ """ Free/Demo Version Periodically goes silent after 10 minutes. No access to nightly (development) builds. """ And, if you wonder, you can't enter 0 for the payment.

Ah I see, so that's what it looks like when you're not using a linux distro to obtain Ardour. And no, I never pressed the button because I just get it through Ubuntu Studio, and I've been using Ardour for years, for my simple (but frequent, multiple times per day) needs whatever version is in there is plenty.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#46

Post by runiq »

codedokode wrote: post #34
runiq wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is Ardour's fault, but the 'fault' of plugin developers not providing Linux binaries in the first place.

If nobody provides Linux binaries then maybe it is better to support Windows binaries out of the box?

How? By bundling WINE? No thanks.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#47

Post by jpc0 »

codedokode wrote: post #34
runiq wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is Ardour's fault, but the 'fault' of plugin developers not providing Linux binaries in the first place.

If nobody provides Linux binaries then maybe it is better to support Windows binaries out of the box?

Yes because it's trivial to dynamically link to a windows dll from a linux program

Re: Ardour 8.0

#48

Post by ninjin »

globular-toast wrote: post #43
ninjin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure it is clear cut as you present it. Clearly Ardour the project is not a commercial product and the same should go for the source code. Arguably the pre-compiled binaries are a commercial product as they are presented to a market for a price (although the same of course does not hold for Ardour binaries provided through package managers and elsewhere). To me, the confusion mostly arises from the fact that…

Ardour certainly looks like a commercial project to me. I think this thinking arises from a couple of misapprehensions, namely: 1. Commerce is bad and somehow at odds with free software and the GPL, 2. The only way to do any kind of software trade is proprietary software. In fact, commerce is beautiful and a cornerstone of economics and our civilisation. Most people in the free software community are not opposed to c…

I am not sure how Ardour would feel about being referred to as a commercial project. But I do suspect if you went back in time and sent an e-mail to misc@ ten years ago calling OpenBSD a commercial project because they sold CDs you would be told to take a hike. I will just agree to disagree on this one. You seem to want to make a bigger point about software and commerce and all I see are shades of grey in that commercialisation is not clear cut and neither is what is a project, its outcomes, etc.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#49

Post by throwaway290 »

radiowave wrote: post #44
throwaway290 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's three times the size of the DAW itself, and unlike the DAW it requires using an installer during which it asks for admin password. Wow. Wonder what happened to "just drop this file into that dir" README.txt...

Putting a file into "that dir" also requires elevated permissions. (e.g. C:\Program Files\VSTPlugins )

Of course but the point is I do that myself. Installer just asks for permissions and does who knows what.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#50

Post by nirui »

Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I think there is something on the website we can all take a note of: that is, on the download page, it says download "Ready-To-Run Program".

Yep, not download "Binary", "Executable", "Package" or any of that non-sense (from user's perspective), just "Ready-To-Run Program", simple and clear, exactly what user wants when they open that page.

Post reply on HN