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

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: Ardour 8.0

#121

Post by freedomben »

ninjin wrote: post #48
globular-toast wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commer…

I think GP makes a reasonable point about what commercial actually means. If you are selling something, that's commerce. If the Ardour dev or OpenBSD devs don't like it, then they are free to adopt a euphemism that makes them feel better about it, but that appeal to authority doesn't change the meaning of the term. I think that actually further reinforces GP's point about how the term "commercial software" has become a dirty word.

Now that said, I do support avoiding language that is offensive to people even if it doesn't seem to me like it should be (so long as it's still clear what is being communicated. I don't like Orwellian expressions).

Re: Ardour 8.0

#122

Post by codedokode »

spacechild1 wrote: post #77
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.

> Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats (LV2, Linux VST), for which there are little plugins. On Linux, Ardour supports LADSPA, LV2, VST2 and VST3. Those are the most widely used plugin formats. What are you missing exactly?

Those are rarely used formats, most of plugins are either in Windows formats like VST, or in Mac formats.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#123

Post by codedokode »

mhitza wrote: post #26
codedokode wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

For Fedora use this copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/patrickl/yabridge/

The link says that it supports only Fedora 38. Also, the main page for COPR says (in a small font): "NOTE: Copr is not yet officially supported by Fedora Infrastructure.". As I understand, it is the repository for packages uploaded by random anonymous users (not related to the authors of yabridge or Fedora).

Re: Ardour 8.0

#124

Post by auggierose »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #80
auggierose wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also prefer if there was no $100 to pay. But it is a fair price, and I find the attitude of programmers that everything should be free quite damaging. If you want to donate your free time, that's really up to you. Don't construe constraints for other people or companies from that.

I don't want it to be free. I want Apple to not lie that "This application is damaged" when I don't pay them.

I don't recall the exact message, but I don't think they say it is damaged. They will probably say something like it may be damaged. Which is perfectly true, as they have no means of verifying its integrity.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#125

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

auggierose wrote: post #124
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want it to be free. I want Apple to not lie that "This application is damaged" when I don't pay them.

I don't recall the exact message, but I don't think they say it is damaged. They will probably say something like it may be damaged. Which is perfectly true, as they have no means of verifying its integrity.

https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png

Re: Ardour 8.0

#126

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

auggierose wrote: post #72
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.

Yes, of course it is fair. You can charge whatever you want for your program. But Ardour is free. Accepting donations is not the same as charging for something.

Technically speaking, ardour.org charges for a build service.

You can get the source code for free from us (either as a tarball or via git). You can get the source code or the binary from somebody else.

But if you want to get the binary from us, we ask you pay at least US$1.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#127

Post by throwaway290 »

rovingeye wrote: post #110
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...

Users want an installer. You can see what the installers are doing by looking at the scripts in the repo (this is an open source project). Admin permission is necessary to write to the Global VST folder. You can direct your "Wow" at Steinberg if you want. The spec was recently updated to allow for a User install location which has been considered: https://steinbergmedia.github.io/vst3_dev_portal/pages/Techn... If you…

> You can direct your "Wow" at Steinberg if you want.

Plenty of plugins just ship with a README and tell you where to drop em though! Even paid. So especially if it's OSS I don't think it's bad to require a bit of effort from the user especially if it takes unpaid time maintaining the installer wrapper. Thanks for the bundle link!

Re: Ardour 8.0

#128

Post by kuon »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #69
kuon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a complicated work, but it will have to be done eventually.

When do you believe that X Window API-using applications will cease to function?

For large x64 machine we use for music, maybe not very soon. But I work on embedded devices for medical application (basically fancy iPads with other hardware) and it's already wayland only down to the drivers.

I think XWayland will be the way to go for a long time. For ardour itself, native Wayland is desirable for tooltips and other minor (but very annoying) UI things that break under XWayland, but for plugins, XWayland can be the glue.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#129

Post by tofflos »

Thank you for the Arrangement view and the Launchpad support! I don't run Ardour but the Arrangement view in particular makes me want to try it out.

Re: Ardour 8.0

#130

Post by auggierose »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #125
auggierose wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall the exact message, but I don't think they say it is damaged. They will probably say something like it may be damaged. Which is perfectly true, as they have no means of verifying its integrity.

https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png

Ok, that's bad. I fully agree.
Post reply on HN