[linux-audio-dev] Re: [Consortium-p] Re: linuxaudio.org

[Marek Peteraj]

Is there any chance you'd postpone it and announce the project and
the beta site on lad for further discussing before launching it?

No. As I've already explained, my view is that membership of a
particular mailing list does not confer veto rights over any project
that happens to have the words Linux and Audio in its name.

[snipping a lot of stuff]
I honestly can't understand what the fuss is all about. If someone
wants to contribute, well, just contribute.
If we failed to contact every possible linux audio developer around,
just drop a note that *you* are going to contact him and put the list
in Cc:.

done.

If you feel the rules are not the most equitable possible, suggest
(practical) modifications.
If you feel that a more "community-oriented" approach (whatever that
means) is due, I'm sure we can officially create a "community
relationship" position inside the Consortium.

?

"The consortium aims to co-ordinate joint projects between members,
collaborate on the promotion of Linux based systems for audio tasks, and
provide a single point of contact for both prospective Linux users and
industry partners."

IIUC it should serve and protect the community and its members. Isn't
LAD such single point of contact? Who are you trying to help?

If you feel that <FILL IN THE BLANKS>, well, you're welcome to give
your help.
Oh, and a small hint: there is people in here who have bben around
from *before* 1999, so - even assuming that "being around" and "doing
the right thing" have a cause-effect relationship - nobody is going to
be impressed by a somewhat "veteran" attitude.

All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the *only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.

I hope we can stop this childish attitude and actually get some work
done (this is usually the moment when people start to disappear).

So keeping such projects confidential until "ready", and not accepting a
community place although it's been here from 1997 or so isn't childish?

Marek

[Steve Harris]

Post by Marek Peteraj
All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the *only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.

I dont think thats true - there are a large number of linux audio
developers* that aren't present on LAD.

the l-a-d mailing list may be seen as an authoritive representation of the
LAD community, but not linux audio in general.

* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers - when was the last time you saw a posting from yamaha.com,
4front or Hartmann?

- Steve

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj
All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the *only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.

I dont think thats true - there are a large number of linux audio
developers* that aren't present on LAD.
the l-a-d mailing list may be seen as an authoritive representation of the
LAD community, but not linux audio in general.
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD,

that's why we should promote it. I see there's a clear tradition. It's
been here since when - 1997 or 1996? that's 7-8 years already.

I'm not saying that this is the only place even if there are other
places, but i don't know of any other places where people discuss linux
audio development in general. And even if there were more places, we
should try to get them together.

Post by Steve Harris
and all the commercial
developers - when was the last time you saw a posting from yamaha.com,
4front or Hartmann?

I have a cd burner from Yamaha, i tried to contact them because i wanted
them to provide specs for developing a firmware loader. I've contacted
them 6-7 times, and guess what, the answer was 'no' even though they
discontinued all cd-burners a year ago. The emails came with invalid
email addrs.

4Front - are those the ones who did proprietary soundcard drivers for
linux? Wasn't that one of the reasons alsa was created?

Is Hartmann actually informing its customers that they're using a linux
kernel? Are they informing whether or not it's a vanilla kernel or a
patched kernel? Are they actually providing source code?

http://www.music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2003-June/004100.html

Take another example - Kiss. I guess everybody here is reading slashdot.
For those who're not, see http://www.mplayerhq.hu.

Or take montavista - (Benno, correct me if i'm wrong) they use Benno's
latency test tool without actually mentioning his efforts.
Those efforts we're discussed *here* back in 2000 if i remember
correctly.

I'm sorry to say that, but there's only *one* company that supports
linux - Lionstracs.
And there are those companies which come close, by providing specs and
even hw - companies such as RME.

Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Steve Harris
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers

http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html

see bottom of this mail :)

Marek

[Steve Harris]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Steve Harris
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers

http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html

I dont think one guy is really representative of the industry, though it
is good to see commercial guys here.

- Steve

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Steve Harris
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers

http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html

I dont think one guy is really representative of the industry, though it
is good to see commercial guys here.

http://eca.cx/lad/2003/09/0190.html

or there's Fred Gleason - Salem Radio Labs.

The question is - who's the representative of the industry and whether
providing a virtual consortium will change the situation.

I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD and oss,
linux audio projects such as:

(in no particular order)

*Ardour
*ALSA
*Jack
*JAMin
*LADSPA+swh-plugins
*LinuxSampler
*Lilypond
etc

Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc

It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).

comments?

Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Is there any chance you'd postpone it and announce the project and
the beta site on lad for further discussing before launching it?

No. As I've already explained, my view is that membership of a
particular mailing list does not confer veto rights over any project
that happens to have the words Linux and Audio in its name.

Unfortunately, not much people did know about it, except those
you've contacted.

er... perhaps that's because I haven't made the initial public
announcement yet, which will go out tomorrow. I've been working on
this for less than two weeks, and some things take a few days to
prepare.

I could help with that. I didn't know about that.

there are lots of people who would like to
contribute to such project and lots of people with great ideas on
how to move on. It's just different when you make decisions on your
own.

We obviously have very different ideas about project management. Where
would the Linux kernel be if Linus hadn't started it by himself? (not
that I'm comparing my technical ability to Linus's for one moment.)
The alternative is to pre-announce the project, then form a committee
to discuss the issues for 20 years or more - examples would be
Xanadu, or GNU Hurd, or the lean and stable version of Windows.
I know from experience with libre software, wireless networks and many
other areas that it's all very well talking about a project, but if
there isn't one or two people to actually do the work then it won't
happen. You can call it leadership if you like, but I'm not out to
found a dictatorship here. I just happen to be the only person who
bothered registering the domain name and committed to seeing the
project through to launch.

Discussion is what shapes a project

No, action shapes a project. Discussion without action is just a
pressure wave in air.

The problem is that we should follow
basic principles of democracy. This didn't happen.

I think you're pre-judging an organisation that hasn't even launched
yet. If you read the Policy page of the website, you'll see I have
deliberately set up an organisation with a management board made up
of members representatives, which oversees the Director.

Did any voting
happen?

Not yet.

Any discussion?

Yes.

You have obeyed lots of lad members by not
asking them.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here.

1. inform about plans, ideas
2. discuss, try to form conclusions
3. take action

You've still got time to take action.

Seems like you'd like to go the other way around.

Actually, I don't see project management working in such a linear
fashion. There has to be 1, 2 and 3 happening in parallel.

The problem is that the name 'linux audio' actually *represents*
both the linux audio developer community and the linux audio user
community

Not at all. Neither linux.com or linux.org have any special status in
the Linux community - they're just domain names.

both meet at a common place which is the lad or lau
mailing list. It's where the discussion takes place

But not the action?

Second problem is to find a way for new users and developers to
find everything they need related to linux audio *and* to make it a
meeting point, or even provide necessary resources to help new
audio projects grow.

Personally, I saw little value in replicating the work of existing
sites, or creating an all-encompassing portal.

Exactly, 'personally' is your problem.

The key is the name of the domain. It's
www.linuxaudio.org.

Not any more, I'm afraid. If you wanted that domain name six months
ago you should have registered it then.

It doesn't matter who registers the site.

The problem is lots of people won't find what
they actually wanted to find on such place.

Until a couple of weeks ago there was nothing at all there, so I hope
this site will be an improvement.

The consortium isn't the most necesary solution that will boost
linux audio

I disagree. If you don't want to co-operate, you are free to start a
better project.

it's not something people might find interesting
if they want to know about linux audio.

The new user might be better off at other sites, it's true.
linux-sound.org or djcj.org already exist.

It's
1. providing information,
2. providing a meeting place for devs and users,
3. providing necesary resources, similar to sf.net

That's your project, not mine. No-one is stopping you doing that.

the members should be *natural persons*, lad
members, and the organisation should be focused on the *community*,
not on companies.

Again, you're talking about a different project. As for companies, who
do you think employs members of the community to work on Linux audio?
Linuxaudio.org gives libre software projects and companies equal
status - that's pretty rare for an industry body.

The
organisation should exist to protect the interests of the LAD
community.

As defined by yourself?

Are you kidding me? Who's the one taking action? Did i suggest to take a
look at xiph foundation or gnome foundation...?

All I'm trying to do here is bring people
together for mutual benefit, be they manufacturers, developers, or
users.

That's why i *strongly* suggest - let's postpone it. Let's
discuss it. Let's make a decision at ZKM LAD meeting 2004 :)

I can't do that now. You're demanding veto power again.

??

But a formal org. has no meaning if it isn't governed by law.

Plenty of important Linux-related organisations aren't legal entities.
If it proves necessary later, we can go down that path.

How
should it act and protect the interests of lad community?

We'll find out after the launch.

time to start a organisation - a foundation consisting
of lad members.

If you look at the current membership list you'll see they mostly are
LAD members already.

The question is not whether it's
*yours* or *mine*.

I'm afraid it is, because you're trying to impose your decisions on
me.

The point is that it's an *acknowledged* place

Yes, for discussion among developers - Linuxaudio.org is both
different and complementary to the LAD list.

every little thign
happened to be discussed there, teh name of jack, the logo of lad,
the content of www.linuxaudiodev.org site, the LAD meetings etc and
i'm just mentioning thing which aren't related to coding

That's hardly everything. Let me be explicit about the limitations of
the current set-up.
1. Generally, very poor relations between hardware manufacturers and
LAD community. You'd think that anyone writing a driver, or otherwise
offering gratis support for the audio hardware of a particular
manufacturer, would be welcomed with open arms. Not so - hackers
can't even get full specs sometimes, let alone technical partnership
or 'free as in beer' test kit.
2. Fragmentation - what organisation there is, is informal. Companies
that want to have better relations with the LAD community don't know
where to start. Result - those companies aren't taking Linux based
audio products to the mainstream. Also see 1. above.

Do you think they will - without any users?

3. Developers are busy. They don't always have the time or skills to
do advocacy, write articles for magazines or organise public events.
The result is that advocacy just isn't being done as much as it could
be. Linux has been around more than a decade, but it hasn't been
until this year that we'll see the first appearance of libre software
at audio industry trade shows.

If the linuxaudio.org project intends to have official status, then
you should *first* take LAD and ZKM conference seriously

I do. They have a certain amount of natural authority.

as
something with official status.

You're just wrong here. They have no official status which allows them
to dictate how advocacy is done - neither do you.

So you do have official status then?

By not doing that, you're actually completely careless about the
entire LAD community.

I think you're just complaining because you feel like the last to know
- even though it doesn't even launch until tomorrow. In the
pre-launch phase, I've discussed linuxaudio.org with every LAD member
that I know.

So how come you're the director of a consortium before lots of
linux audio people know about it

Lots of Linux audio people do know about it. The reason I made myself
the director is that someone has to take responsibility, and put in
the hours of unpaid work it requires to launch the project. If you
read the Policy page you'll see that the director has to answer to
the management board, which means I can easily be replaced after the
launch.

a director of a consortium
which you wouldn't even think of if those people didn't develop
such apps?

I took this unpaid job on because no-one else was doing it.

Did you ask anybody? Any voting?

So far,
I'm funding linuxaudio.org out of my own pocket. I'm quite aware of
the fundamental contribution of libre software developers to the
systems I use, which is why they have equal weight with companies on
the linuxaudio.org management board.

Sorry but 'equal' just isn't the right word for it, 95% vs. 5% would be.

Woudln't it be better if those people we're acting in
such position?

LAD members have had plenty of time to set up an organisation of this
nature, and none of them have. What does that tell you?

What should it tell me?

Are you sure you're protecting the interests of the
community?

Quite sure. Now please stop trolling and make a positive contribution.

Sorry. I didn't know that criticism = trolling for you.

Cheers
Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org

Marek

[Paul Winkler]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:29:45AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
(snip a whole lot)

What the heck is this all about?
Looks like a discussion cross-posted from elsewhere mid-argument?

[Daniel James]

Post by Marek Peteraj

If the linuxaudio.org project intends to have official status,
then you should *first* take LAD and ZKM conference seriously

I do. They have a certain amount of natural authority.

as
something with official status.

You're just wrong here. They have no official status which allows
them to dictate how advocacy is done - neither do you.

So you do have official status then?

Nope. But then I'm not telling anyone else what to do.

Post by Marek Peteraj

I took this unpaid job on because no-one else was doing it.

Did you ask anybody?

Plenty of people. All were positive, so I went ahead. Not everyone has
the time or inclination to do advocacy work.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Any voting?

We can't take a vote on anything until there's some sort of structure
in place to organise the voting - that's exactly what we're trying to
do with the linuxaudio.org management board.

Post by Marek Peteraj

I'm quite aware
of the fundamental contribution of libre software developers to
the systems I use, which is why they have equal weight with
companies on the linuxaudio.org management board.

Sorry but 'equal' just isn't the right word for it, 95% vs. 5%
would be.

I don't understand your maths. The members so far are mostly libre
software projects, and the management board will be established on a
one member one vote basis.

Post by Marek Peteraj

LAD members have had plenty of time to set up an organisation of
this nature, and none of them have. What does that tell you?

What should it tell me?

That no-one else could spare the time, probably.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I didn't know that criticism = trolling for you.

My definition of trolling would be persistent, unfair and unhelpful
criticism. I'm all favour of positive criticism - I'd settle for
neutral criticism. Please give us a break until after the launch at
least.

Cheers

Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org

[Tim Orford]

Daniel,

Would you mind putting your case to the wider community here?
Marek has objections which appear to have some weight but
i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt really know what is
going on here.

There are some thorny subject matters involved. It is very important
that representation of linux audio to the outside world is done
correctly. It is not an easy thing to do. Likewise, corporate
involvement is also pretty controversial.


regards

[Daniel James]

Post by Tim Orford
Would you mind putting your case to the wider community here?

It's my intention to do that with the launch of the project later
today.

Post by Tim Orford
Marek has objections which appear to have some weight

Only if you don't know what we're doing. Given that the project isn't
even underway yet and has only been in preparation for the last
couple of weeks, it's premature for Marek to attempt to both force
the direction of the project and prevent the site from being
launched. He wanted the domain name himself for a different site, but
he didn't bother to register it.

Post by Tim Orford
but
i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt really know what is
going on here.

Hence the need for the launch to be done properly, which takes time of
course. As I explained to Marek, I'm not going to launch a project
with zero community support. All I've been doing in the last couple
of weeks is putting the idea to the LAD members that I know (or know
by their software), and asking for their support. We can now launch a
project with 17 members organisations rather than zero members, which
in my view is now far more likely to succeed. It's not a cabal, and
we haven't stopped anyone from joining.

Post by Tim Orford
It is very
important that representation of linux audio to the outside world
is done correctly. It is not an easy thing to do.

You're quite right, especially as there is little financial support
for advocacy work. I'm launching this on my own time and funding it
out of my own pocket, but after that it's up to the management board,
representing the membership, to decide if I need to be replaced as
Director. But someone has to get the project started.

Post by Tim Orford
corporate involvement is also pretty controversial.

Corporates are already critically involved in Linux audio. Andrew
Morton is paid for his kernel work through OSDL - check their
membership list. ALSA is supported financially by SUSE, owned by
Novell. These firms are as corporate as it gets.

What matters to me is that corporate interests don't overrule other
interests. Linuxaudio.org is mostly composed of libre software
projects, who get a seat on the management board, just like companies
- regardless of size. If you check the management boards of
organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll notice that libre
software projects don't get any representation there at all.

Cheers

Daniel

[Tim Orford]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
Would you mind putting your case to the wider community here?

It's my intention to do that with the launch of the project later
today.

Post by Tim Orford
Marek has objections which appear to have some weight

Only if you don't know what we're doing. Given that the project isn't
even underway yet and has only been in preparation for the last
couple of weeks, it's premature for Marek to attempt to both force
the direction of the project and prevent the site from being
launched. He wanted the domain name himself for a different site, but
he didn't bother to register it.

there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
but
i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt really know what is
going on here.

Hence the need for the launch to be done properly, which takes time of
course. As I explained to Marek, I'm not going to launch a project
with zero community support. All I've been doing in the last couple
of weeks is putting the idea to the LAD members that I know (or know
by their software), and asking for their support. We can now launch a
project with 17 members organisations rather than zero members, which
in my view is now far more likely to succeed. It's not a cabal, and
we haven't stopped anyone from joining.

without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal. How can we join something
that doesnt exist and that we havnt been told about? Its all a bit
surreal.

So how do i join? You need a european sound engineer perhaps.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
It is very
important that representation of linux audio to the outside world
is done correctly. It is not an easy thing to do.

You're quite right, especially as there is little financial support
for advocacy work. I'm launching this on my own time and funding it
out of my own pocket, but after that it's up to the management board,
representing the membership, to decide if I need to be replaced as
Director. But someone has to get the project started.

As you havnt made a case, i couldnt comment on whether the project
is needed. And we are all doing this on our own time...

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
corporate involvement is also pretty controversial.

Corporates are already critically involved in Linux audio. Andrew
Morton is paid for his kernel work through OSDL - check their
membership list. ALSA is supported financially by SUSE, owned by
Novell. These firms are as corporate as it gets.

Ok, although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
industry, which i view as being quite different. I agree that
the work done by companies such as SUSE on system infrastructure
is valuable.

But the last few months has seen a big increase in corporate
stakes in linux. I beleive that the controversies are only just
beginning to be felt. There has always been disagreement over
how much their involvement is a good thing. The main danger for
me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Post by Daniel James
What matters to me is that corporate interests don't overrule other
interests. Linuxaudio.org is mostly composed of libre software
projects, who get a seat on the management board, just like companies
- regardless of size. If you check the management boards of
organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll notice that libre
software projects don't get any representation there at all.

I'm not sure its a fair comparison.

I'll wait until your announcement. But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors. I cant imagine why you chose
not to discuss it openly. Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.

-------------

i just saw the url posted by Fred Gleason.

the aims are stated as:
The aim of the Linuxaudio.org consortium is to
promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
professional audio use.

Thats ok for a press release, but what does it mean in practice?
Its way too vague. What exactly are you promoting?

Its also a very wide range of companies you have there - too wide?
No offence to these companies, but do i really want Mandrake and
4Front speaking for me?


cheers

[Daniel James]

Post by Tim Orford
there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.

Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to
support the project. If it isn't doing valuable work, it won't
survive, since it depends on volunteer input.

Post by Tim Orford
without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal.

I think you should look for harder targets. Why is it so bad to spend
a few days putting the website together before it's publically
announced? Does no-one on this list get their code in a usable shape
before they announce their projects?

Post by Tim Orford
How can we join
something that doesnt exist and that we havnt been told about?

If you can find time to criticise something that doesn't exist yet,
perhaps you could answer that one for me.

Post by Tim Orford
So how do i join?

Just ask. At the moment linuxaudio.org is conceived as a
meta-organisation, representing existing projects and companies,
rather than individuals directly. Is there a particular project
you're involved in?

Post by Tim Orford
You need a european sound engineer perhaps.

Without a doubt.

Post by Tim Orford
As you havnt made a case, i couldnt comment on whether the project
is needed.

Can you wait a day?

Post by Tim Orford
And we are all doing this on our own time...

Not all of us. I run my own studio (Linux based of course), and I also
write for audio and Linux magazines, which I do get paid for. Not a
lot, perhaps, but by contrast the linuxaudio.org role is completely
voluntary. And there are other people who are paid to work on Linux
audio, or with it.

Post by Tim Orford
although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
industry, which i view as being quite different.

So there are good corporates and bad corporates? If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis?

Post by Tim Orford
But the last few months has seen a big increase in corporate
stakes in linux.

I would say the last few years, but I take your point.

Post by Tim Orford
I beleive that the controversies are only just
beginning to be felt.

Quite true - I'm hoping we can avoid exactly this kind of problem by
bringing the pro audio industry in from the cold. They're not going
away, and neither are we.

Post by Tim Orford
There has always been disagreement over
how much their involvement is a good thing.

Consider this - we have dyne:bolic as a member, which is an avowedly
anti-corporate project. So far, Microsoft has not asked to join.

Post by Tim Orford
The main danger for
me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.

I don't see that happening in pro audio. Worry about Lindows if you
like.

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James
If you check the management
boards of organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll
notice that libre software projects don't get any representation
there at all.

I'm not sure its a fair comparison.

They are industry consortia addressing a particular niche market. OK,
we may not have their funding, but the principle is the same.

Post by Tim Orford
But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors.

I do appreciate the danger, I just wish some people would actually
wait to see what linuxaudio.org actually is before supporting or
criticising it.

Post by Tim Orford
I cant imagine why you chose
not to discuss it openly

I did not choose that, I just didn't discuss it in your preferred
forum - which is not the same thing. Actually, I just wanted to make
sure that I was doing the right thing before making a public
announcement, so I asked the LAD members I knew first.

Post by Tim Orford
Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.

I won't.

Post by Tim Orford
The aim of the Linuxaudio.org consortium is to
promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
professional audio use.
Thats ok for a press release, but what does it mean in practice?

We'll find out.

Post by Tim Orford
Its way too vague.

I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is
vague?

Post by Tim Orford
What exactly are you promoting?

Whatever the members are doing, I suppose.

Post by Tim Orford
Its also a very wide range of companies you have there

Hardly. Which ones aren't involved in Linux audio? We've got audio
hardware, Linux distributions and audio applications represented.

Post by Tim Orford
No offence to these companies, but do i really want Mandrake and
4Front speaking for me?

This is your key misconception, and I think Marek's as well. Firstly,
consortium members can only speak for themselves. The consortium as a
whole can only speak for its members. If you don't join, it won't be
speaking for you.

Cheers

Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org

[Mark Constable]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
...
But the last few months has seen a big increase in corporate
stakes in linux.

I would say the last few years, but I take your point.

Post by Tim Orford
I beleive that the controversies are only just
beginning to be felt.

Quite true - I'm hoping we can avoid exactly this kind of problem by
bringing the pro audio industry in from the cold. They're not going
away, and neither are we.

A lot of folks on, and off, this list have spent many years of work
toiling with hard-to-use tools with very little outside support, in
general (there are a few exceptions), to bring linux audio up to the
level of becoming quite useful and on the final run home to becoming
a professionally usable, even desirable, audio/whatever platform.

It's probably a bit of a wake up call to some folks on this list that
this cosey LAD-cabal is about to be usurped, absorbed and displaced by
a cororate-cabal and you're aim is to encourage this procedure. There
is some uneaze about whether the likes of Steinberg and M$ are in any
way welcome on the same planet, let alone involved in any decisions
about the future of ALSA/Jack/*, now that all the hard work has been
mostly done without them. Circling shark analogies come to mind.

My point is: don't take it for granted that everyone here will smile
upon your efforts. The reason the long hard route has been taken in
the first place is to avoid being shafted by corporate hidden agendas
and unabashed profit motives... which you are now openly promoting
using a debatably iconic netmark and without any obvious signs of
merit other than doing what _you_ think is appropriate.

My apologies for posting a message to this list without providing a
patch or a bug report.

--markc

[Daniel James]

Post by Mark Constable
It's probably a bit of a wake up call to some folks on this list
that this cosey LAD-cabal is about to be usurped, absorbed and
displaced by a cororate-cabal and you're aim is to encourage this
procedure.

Are you an ironist of some kind, Mark?

Post by Mark Constable
There is some uneaze about whether the likes of
Steinberg and M$ are in any way welcome on the same planet, let
alone involved in any decisions about the future of ALSA/Jack/*

Firstly, neither Steinberg or Microsoft have been invited to join
linuxaudio.org, nor have they asked to. Secondly, I'm not at all
clear how membership of a consortium designed to promote the use of
libre software would allow these two companies to steer the ALSA
project, or any other. Thirdly, did you fail to notice that ALSA
development is now paid for by Novell?

Post by Mark Constable
My point is: don't take it for granted that everyone here will
smile upon your efforts.

I certainly won't. I think I'll concentrate on talking to people
actually making a positive contribution to Linux audio from now on.

Post by Mark Constable
The reason the long hard route has been
taken in the first place is to avoid being shafted by corporate
hidden agendas and unabashed profit motives...

You presume I'm in favour of corporate shafting? You know nothing
about me, then.

Post by Mark Constable
which you are now
openly promoting using a debatably iconic netmark

If it's iconic, one of you should have bothered registering it before
two weeks ago - you had years to do it.

Post by Mark Constable
and without any
obvious signs of merit other than doing what _you_ think is
appropriate.

Actually, I've spoken to a lot of people in the community about this,
who have nearly all been supportive.

Cheers

Daniel

[ian esten]

a couple of things...
first, the reason (or one of) i think you are seeing such strong
reaction is that this website has come as rather a suprise to a lot of
people on here. i think everyone involved in linux audio development (in
any way, be it writing, bugfixing or testing apps or libraries) has
become rather used to having a voice in the process, and being able to
appoint 'leaders' if needs be. linuxaudio.org is one persons effort to
set up a central focus for that, and until now it was done in secret.
that makes a lot of people feel cut out which is not a good thing. this
has the potential to be an important thing, so it should be some sort of
democratic process.
second, there has been a little anti corporation sentiment kicking
around in this thread. personally i think it would be fantastic to get
big audio companies giving input on how they think things should work.
that way the linux audio world could give them the things they need to
get their products working in linux. obviously they can't adopt the open
source model for their software, but having it work alongside open
source stuff would be a huge boost for linux audio. corporations aren't
evil, and open source isnt the only way!
ian

Post by Daniel James

Post by Mark Constable
It's probably a bit of a wake up call to some folks on this list
that this cosey LAD-cabal is about to be usurped, absorbed and
displaced by a cororate-cabal and you're aim is to encourage this
procedure.

Are you an ironist of some kind, Mark?

Post by Mark Constable
There is some uneaze about whether the likes of
Steinberg and M$ are in any way welcome on the same planet, let
alone involved in any decisions about the future of ALSA/Jack/*

Firstly, neither Steinberg or Microsoft have been invited to join
linuxaudio.org, nor have they asked to. Secondly, I'm not at all
clear how membership of a consortium designed to promote the use of
libre software would allow these two companies to steer the ALSA
project, or any other. Thirdly, did you fail to notice that ALSA
development is now paid for by Novell?

Post by Mark Constable
My point is: don't take it for granted that everyone here will
smile upon your efforts.

I certainly won't. I think I'll concentrate on talking to people
actually making a positive contribution to Linux audio from now on.

Post by Mark Constable
The reason the long hard route has been
taken in the first place is to avoid being shafted by corporate
hidden agendas and unabashed profit motives...

You presume I'm in favour of corporate shafting? You know nothing
about me, then.

Post by Mark Constable
which you are now
openly promoting using a debatably iconic netmark

If it's iconic, one of you should have bothered registering it before
two weeks ago - you had years to do it.

Post by Mark Constable
and without any
obvious signs of merit other than doing what _you_ think is
appropriate.

Actually, I've spoken to a lot of people in the community about this,
who have nearly all been supportive.
Cheers
Daniel

[Tim Orford]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.

Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to
support the project. [...]

the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal.

I think you should look for harder targets. Why is it so bad to spend
a few days putting the website together before it's publically
announced? Does no-one on this list get their code in a usable shape
before they announce their projects?

A technical project is not the same as a campaigning organisation.
Its not fair to compare the two. Having said that, if an organisation
such as KDE releases something which is detrimental to proaudio,
they are rightly criticised for not consulting.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
So how do i join?

Just ask. At the moment linuxaudio.org is conceived as a
meta-organisation, representing existing projects and companies,
rather than individuals directly. Is there a particular project
you're involved in?

Post by Tim Orford
You need a european sound engineer perhaps.

Without a doubt.

sound engineers are not organised as either projects or companies.
So can i join? Pls consider this a formal request.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
industry, which i view as being quite different.

So there are good corporates and bad corporates? If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis?

yes, no.
You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You
lick their asses till they hand over the money.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
There has always been disagreement over
how much their involvement is a good thing.

Consider this - we have dyne:bolic as a member, which is an avowedly
anti-corporate project. So far, Microsoft has not asked to join.

I'm not sure what we are sposed to make of that statement. But i'll
wait to see what kind of corporate involvement you want to encourage.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
The main danger for
me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.

I don't see that happening in pro audio. Worry about Lindows if you
like.

pro audio is way behind mainstream linux concerns. But if linux ever
becomes a more viable platform for general music production
then that will obviously change. I dont see it
happening, but i dont want eg Steinberg here.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James
If you check the management
boards of organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll
notice that libre software projects don't get any representation
there at all.

I'm not sure its a fair comparison.

They are industry consortia addressing a particular niche market. OK,
we may not have their funding, but the principle is the same.

Both the scale and the principle are different. OSDL and CELF are
'selling' their 'product' to large-scale enterprises and hence need
a corporately acceptable face. With the exception of some media
companies, audio users are either individuals or companies of less
than 10. This lack of user coordination is a definite factor in
users getting a bad deal from commercial suppliers. Eg the film
industries forcing of Avid/Digidesign to allow cross-product file
transfer (this may be a bad example but i hope you see the point).

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors.

I do appreciate the danger, I just wish some people would actually
wait to see what linuxaudio.org actually is before supporting or
criticising it.

Post by Tim Orford
I cant imagine why you chose
not to discuss it openly

I did not choose that, I just didn't discuss it in your preferred
forum - which is not the same thing. Actually, I just wanted to make

dont mean to split hairs, but that is not my definition of
open. You are presenting it as a done deal. You already have
a web page and a large number of members who have apparently agreed to
some fairly strong legal commitments.

Post by Daniel James
sure that I was doing the right thing before making a public
announcement, so I asked the LAD members I knew first.

Post by Tim Orford
Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.

I won't.

Post by Tim Orford
The aim of the Linuxaudio.org consortium is to
promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
professional audio use.
Thats ok for a press release, but what does it mean in practice?

We'll find out.

Post by Tim Orford
Its way too vague.

I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is
vague?

there is no detail. However there is a better description on the
About page:

"The consortium aims to co-ordinate joint projects between
members, collaborate on the promotion of Linux based systems for audio
tasks, and provide a single point of contact for both prospective Linux
users and industry partners".

Taking that as 3 distinct parts:
1-project coordination. a consortium should mainly concern itself
with represention to the outside world. Cooperation
should be handled using normal open development methods, imo.
2-promotion. Agreed that this could be useful in the future. Currently
i believe promotion should be aimed at developers not users. I
dont see how corporate involvement will help here. Documentation
and developer oriented articles would be more useful, imo.
3-point of contact. I agree this is a good thing for "industry
partners". Not for users though.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
What exactly are you promoting?

Whatever the members are doing, I suppose.

:-)

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
Its also a very wide range of companies you have there

Hardly. Which ones aren't involved in Linux audio? We've got audio
hardware, Linux distributions and audio applications represented.

Linux Audio or Linux Pro-Audio?

[Tim Goetze]

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.

Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to
support the project. [...]

the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.

anyone who knows just a bit about GNU/Linux knows there isn't just one
company in charge. those who don't know even that, you can expect
to get the idea as soon as they are browsing the news or applications
sections on linuxaudio, or any linux+audio site for that matter.

please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.

tim

[Tim Orford]

Post by Tim Goetze
anyone who knows just a bit about GNU/Linux knows there isn't just one
company in charge. those who don't know even that, you can expect
to get the idea as soon as they are browsing the news or applications
sections on linuxaudio, or any linux+audio site for that matter.

companies work in strange ways. I find it constantly surprising
the lack of understanding that management has of GPL'd software
development. I assume that these are the companies that the
consortium would like to communicate.

Post by Tim Goetze
please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.

:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.


regards

[Daniel James]

Post by Tim Orford
companies work in strange ways. I find it constantly surprising
the lack of understanding that management has of GPL'd software
development. I assume that these are the companies that the
consortium would like to communicate.

We can only communicate with those companies if they are sufficiently
interested in the area. If they are interested, then we'll certainly
have to help them understand libre software principles. Better to do
it that way, than let them go it alone and violate the GPL out of
ignorance.

Post by Tim Orford
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.

I do acknowledge and understand your points Tim, I just don't agree
with all of them.

Cheers

Daniel

[Marek Peteraj]

Daniel,

i'd like to make a few things clear, first of all, how come there's a
mailing list called p-consortium which isn't mentioned on the site?
How can i subscribe? Can i read all discussions that happened there - is
a mail archive available somewhere?

thanks

Marek

[Daniel James]

Post by Marek Peteraj
i'd like to make a few things clear, first of all, how come there's
a mailing list called p-consortium which isn't mentioned on the
site?

consortium-p was set up as a temporary list. I think the p stands for
Preparation. If it's not mentioned on the site it's because I haven't
got around to setting up proper lists yet.

In the next few days I hope to set up a mailing list for consortium
members and another for the management board, as it comes together.

Post by Marek Peteraj
How can i subscribe?

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p

I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Can i read all discussions that happened
there - is a mail archive available somewhere?

Yes, there is the usual Mailman archive.

Cheers

Daniel

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
i'd like to make a few things clear, first of all, how come there's
a mailing list called p-consortium which isn't mentioned on the
site?

consortium-p was set up as a temporary list. I think the p stands for
Preparation. If it's not mentioned on the site it's because I haven't
got around to setting up proper lists yet.
In the next few days I hope to set up a mailing list for consortium
members and another for the management board, as it comes together.

What's the point in creating a dozen of other mailing lists if we can
have one?

Why is consortium-p a *private* mailing list?

I propose to make the list public and rename it to 'linux audio
advocacy', 'laad'.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
How can i subscribe?

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing.

Why are you in such hurry with t-shirt printing? What should be on those
t-shirts? Do we have a logo?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
Can i read all discussions that happened
there - is a mail archive available somewhere?

Yes, there is the usual Mailman archive.

Private. :(

I think there's nothing to hide.

Marek

[Steve Harris]

Post by Marek Peteraj
What's the point in creating a dozen of other mailing lists if we can
have one?

Some of us have code to write. LAD went from a list where I read every
message to one where I read maybe 50% year or two back. I just dont have
time to read every message. If other business gets added to LAD I will
inevitably miss some of it.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
How can i subscribe?

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing.

Why are you in such hurry with t-shirt printing? What should be on those
t-shirts? Do we have a logo?

Are we going to the Sounds expo? The reson for the hurry is that it
starts soon.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
Yes, there is the usual Mailman archive.

Private. :(

To subscribers.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I think there's nothing to hide.

You're right :)

- Steve

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj
What's the point in creating a dozen of other mailing lists if we can
have one?

Some of us have code to write.

And the organisation should promote and protect those who write code.

Post by Steve Harris
LAD went from a list where I read every
message to one where I read maybe 50% year or two back. I just dont have
time to read every message.

I think it's the case with every ml with high traffic.

Post by Steve Harris
If other business gets added to LAD I will
inevitably miss some of it.

I think a linux audio advocacy mailing list should do.

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
How can i subscribe?

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing.

Why are you in such hurry with t-shirt printing? What should be on those
t-shirts? Do we have a logo?

Are we going to the Sounds expo?

Are we? :) I don't know.

Post by Steve Harris
The reson for the hurry is that it
starts soon.

But it's not even sure what we should represent.

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
Yes, there is the usual Mailman archive.

Private. :(

To subscribers.

Why?

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj
I think there's nothing to hide.

You're right :)

So? :)

Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Tim Goetze
anyone who knows just a bit about GNU/Linux knows there isn't just one
company in charge. those who don't know even that, you can expect
to get the idea as soon as they are browsing the news or applications
sections on linuxaudio, or any linux+audio site for that matter.

companies work in strange ways. I find it constantly surprising
the lack of understanding that management has of GPL'd software
development. I assume that these are the companies that the
consortium would like to communicate.

Post by Tim Goetze
please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.

I fear there is if Daniel doesn't acknowledge LAD and the LAD community.

Post by Tim Orford
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.

Tim (Orford), i agree with everything you've said in this thread.

Marek

[Tim Orford]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Tim Orford
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.

Tim (Orford), i agree with everything you've said in this thread.
Marek

Marek, I'm very sorry i dont have the energy to give you more support.
Penetrating the LAD Reality Distortion Field seems particularly
difficult this week.

I have to face the fact that i have been spectacularly
unproductive here over the last 2 years, despite my best efforts.
Its time for me to leave and get on with my life. I have two
pieces of advice which people can interpret however they wish:

Firstly, i wish the consortium well, but i think that whether the
members agree with individual criticisms or not, tact and diplomacy are
two vitally important characteristics of such an organisation, and as
such it should aim for criticisms to be constructively diffused rather
than enflamed with platitudes. I do hope lessons have been learnt.

Secondly, before actively undertaking promotion, i strongly urge all
developers to think seriously and objectively about what exactly they
are promoting and how it compares with commercial software in terms of
features and usability. It appals me that certain people are putting
their lives on the line without a _much_ better understanding of the
current state of the art.


Best wishes to all

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Tim Orford
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.

Tim (Orford), i agree with everything you've said in this thread.
Marek

Marek, I'm very sorry i dont have the energy to give you more support.

That's ok, thanks :)

Post by Tim Orford
Penetrating the LAD Reality Distortion Field seems particularly
difficult this week.
I have to face the fact that i have been spectacularly
unproductive here over the last 2 years, despite my best efforts.
Its time for me to leave and get on with my life.

Hey, you can read the archives offline and join a discussion whenever
you feel the need.. :)

Marek

[Joern Nettingsmeier]

Post by Tim Goetze
please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.

yeeeeees! puh-leeze.

everybody have a coffee.
or better yet, some herbal tea :-D
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com


Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)

[Vincent Touquet]

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
yeeeeees! puh-leeze.
everybody have a coffee.
or better yet, some herbal tea :-D

Isn't theine as bad as caffeine ? ;)

No drink wars please :p

v

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Vincent Touquet

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
yeeeeees! puh-leeze.
everybody have a coffee.
or better yet, some herbal tea :-D

Isn't theine as bad as caffeine ? ;)

Herbal tea doesn't contain theine. Green tea, oolong(partially fermented
tea) and black tea does :)

Marek

[Tim Orford]

hi Daniel

Thanks for replying. I do hope you find this thread constructive.
While we have a different emphasise on some things, i think our
aims are broadly similar, and i dont mean to harangue you:-)

actually i hesitate to send this mail as i guess it is preventing
you from making your case properly. I think i made my initial point
re open discussions, and the thread has mostly moved onto other areas
that i dont have such strong feelings about. But anyway here goes..:-)

Post by Tim Orford
the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general

Only as far as it represents its members - what's wrong with that?
I am trying to work with everyone here. However, the feeling I'm
getting is that certain LAD mailing list members believe they have
some kind of proprietary ownership over the whole area, by virtue of
membership of a mailing list alone. That I find bizarre.

i dont see that. I think people are just expressing concern over
developments which undermine the list. Its not about 'ownership'
or 'rights', just about respect and building a commons. but I can
understand some of the more serious players finding the list relatively amateurish,
and desiring to move to a more serious front, but i hope that
doesnt backfire. Personnally i would hate to see development
fragmented any more than at present. I imagine this list is a good
way to draw in new or potential developers.

Post by Tim Orford
sound engineers are not organised as either projects or companies.
So can i join?

We'll have to find some way that individuals can get involved. I'm
very open to suggestions.

Post by Tim Orford
You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You
lick their asses till they hand over the money.

Well, that's not the way I usually work, personally speaking. I'm not

what do companies have if not money and resources?

sure you can divide corporations into good and bad so easily. Let's
bear in mind that many of the companies working on Linux audio are
very small.

ok, i'm possibly using the word corporation wrongly. I will
use the term large company instead. I have nothing against
small companies, only large ones. And i agree that there is
indeed some chance of an equitable relationship with a small
company that doesnt have a large market share (and corresponding
lack of influence).

but i'm not clear which companies you are trying to court
and why.

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James
So far, Microsoft has not asked
to join.

I'm not sure what we are sposed to make of that statement.

File under attempts at humour.

i'll try and lighten up:-)

Post by Tim Orford
pro audio is way behind mainstream linux concerns.

Quite. Let's see what we can do to help change that.

Post by Tim Orford
I dont see it
happening, but i dont want eg Steinberg here.

If they want to produce a Linux based product, I'm afraid they can do
it without your permission - that's libre software for you.

of course. But the question is not whether it will happen but
whether it should be encouraged.

Post by Tim Orford
Both the scale and the principle are different. OSDL and CELF are
'selling' their 'product' to large-scale enterprises and hence need
a corporately acceptable face. With the exception of some media
companies, audio users are either individuals or companies of less
than 10.

Most businesses are small, audio or not. Windows got to where it is
today on the small business desktop, not through the 'enterprise'.
Besides, just because professional-quality audio tools exist on Linux
does not mean that they will be used exclusively by professionals.

but large corps are where the money is. If you get a nice
contract with IBM, Disney, Germany, you are set!

so do you disagree that OSDL and CELF are aimed at large
companies? I'm asking cos I dont know.

i take it then that you want to target small companies?

Post by Tim Orford
You are presenting it as a done deal.

No, I'm presenting the beginning of a possibility.

Post by Tim Orford
You already have
a web page and a large number of members

What would you say if there were no web page and no members? 'Not much
of a project?'

i certainly wouldnt say that.

Post by Tim Orford
who have apparently agreed
to some fairly strong legal commitments.

The membership policies have little legal weight - they are just an
expression of good faith. No-one has signed anything yet.

:-)

Post by Tim Orford
1-project coordination. a consortium should mainly concern itself
with represention to the outside world. Cooperation
should be handled using normal open development methods, imo.

Sure, but you have to get people to agree to do open development
first.

Post by Tim Orford
2-promotion. Agreed that this could be useful in the future.

That's the main focus of what I am doing personally, taking Linux to
audio industry trade shows.

Post by Tim Orford
Currently i believe promotion should be aimed at developers not
users.

There's plenty of usable software out there now. If there are no
users, why have developers at all?

you need developers before there can be users:-)

i'm afraid i think we disagree on how useable the software is.
Imo the really good software only covers some niches at present.
I'm hesitant to go into details as that is a v tricky area of
discussion!:-)

Besides, the LAD conference is
already aimed at developers.

sure but surely thats in addition to and somewhat separate from any
other organisation/event?

Post by Tim Orford
I dont see how corporate involvement will help here.

I bet you've never booked a stand at a trade show. They are
fantastically expensive events to participate in. Without
sponsorship, it just wouldn't happen.

Sure they're expensive. Dont fight the 'enemy' on their own
ground.

The introduction of large sums of money can change anything,
and usually not for the better. We have better weapons.

Post by Tim Orford
Should companies that have
no interest in pro audio or music production be involved?

If they have a fringe interest in audio, it could be in their
interest. What's good for pro audio - eg ALSA - may also be good for
more general use. However, I personally wanted to concentrate on
supporting software like JACK or Rosegarden, which is of little
interest to mainstream users.

neither of those two projects is completed yet, although jack
nearly is. Just out of interest, are you a Rosegarden user?
I do think that Jack is terrific, but its a hard sell against
competing systems where the wiring is almost a behind the scenes
feature of a highly polished user app. Jack is not enough.
Yes the 'infrastructure' is pretty much there. Now its time to
finish building on it. I'm afraid my experiments with Rosegarden
were not encouraging. This is partly because it uses a model which
i dont personally favour, but perhaps its time for me to give it another try...

Post by Tim Orford
For such an organisation to have respect from
outside, it needs to be seen as representative. And to a large
degree your consortium already is, having most of the major players
as members. Therefore it speaks for me whether i want it to or not.

I don't quite follow that. I'm not out to exclude anybody.

my point was that if the organisation is succesful then i will
have to become a member if i want to have any infuence. If i disagree
with the aims of the organisation and dont become a member then
i will be excluded from many discussions and decisions that i
perhaps have important opinions about. That is not neccesarily
a bad thing, but i just want to see it done in the best possible
way.

Post by Tim Orford
unless you think it through some more and seriously
acknowledge that your actions are underiming the egalitarian nature
of the community and have the potential to split it

That's a pretty serious charge.

a bit melodramatic perhaps:-)
I just wanted to point out the potential negative effects that you
had perhaps overlooked in your enthusiasm.

I believe there's a limited window of opportunity for Linux on the
desktop in general, and audio/music applications are just a tiny part
of that. Pro applications are an even smaller niche. I think there's
a serious risk that without some organised advocacy aimed at building
a significant user base, libre software in this area will eventually
wither away. I don't want to see that.

i dont beleive there is a limited window. The effects of the GPL
are only just beginning! It cant be stopped. Even if it
coexists with proprietory systems, i am convinced that the
successor to Linux will still be here in 20 years, and Jamin will
be the default software in mastering houses worldwide. This will
happen not because of promotion but because it is better. Too
many people have seen the good life and cannot go back to
proprietory software.

i am reminded of the excellent Coen Bros film The Man Who Wasnt
There. He had a good thing going but ruined it by being greedy.
Of course you can find many more films with the opposite moral:-)

anyway, the think the important isssues here are:
1-which companies are you courting and why?
2-is it yet the right time for promotion? Does the software really compete
with proprietory products enough to justify major expenditure?

(btw this is taking up way too much of my time today, so i'll
probably have to go completely offline tomorrow:-))


thanks for listening:-)

[Dave Robillard]

My two cents on the corporate deal:

We already have two big proprietary OSes with tons of proprietary audio
software that run on them.

Why turn Linux into yet another one? What's the point of Linux after
that?

Popularity is indeed nice. But at what cost?

-Dave

[Bob Ham]

Post by Dave Robillard
We already have two big proprietary OSes
Why turn Linux into yet another one?

corporate != proprietary

Bob

[Dave Robillard]

Post by Bob Ham

Post by Dave Robillard
We already have two big proprietary OSes
Why turn Linux into yet another one?

corporate != proprietary
Bob

I realise this, I was being concise for effect really. (My apologies, I
should have been more clear. But then again dealing with the big audio
software manufacturers basically does = proprietary.

Think they'll make Reason (or whatever) open source if they were to port
it to Linux? Hah. Would any of those big corporate entities open up
their file formats as a gesture of good faith? I severely doubt it.

Hardware manufacturers are a different story. We should push with all
we've got to get their (open) cooperation.

I didn't at all mean linux audio should have nothing to do with anything
that is a "corporation". By all means, if they support free software
obviously their presence is welcome. Blind anti-corporatism is silly.

My point was bending over for big companies "just because", in the name
of Linux Audio World Domination (or whatever), is a Bad Idea(TM).

Let's face it, the open source thing is the only thing we've got.
Without it there's no reason for Linux to exist really - go use Solaris.

-Dave

[Steve Harris]

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.

Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to
support the project. [...]

the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.

It doesnt AFAICT, looking at the website, it claims to be a
"not-for-profit consortium of companies and libre software projects using
Linux kernel based systems and other libre software for audio work, with
an emphasis on professional tools for the music, recording and broadcast
industries" - thats not what you said at all, and its true as far as I
know.

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James
So there are good corporates and bad corporates? If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis?

yes, no.
You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You
lick their asses till they hand over the money.

Thats an opinion.

- Steve

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.

Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to
support the project.

I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to destroy the importance of
LAD with your ignorance. Why have another p-consortium mailing list? Why
should something like that be confidential?

Post by Daniel James
If it isn't doing valuable work, it won't
survive, since it depends on volunteer input.

This isn't a project. An organisation consisting of lad members which
serves the needs of lad members and protects them isn't a project.
Sorry.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal.

I think you should look for harder targets. Why is it so bad to spend
a few days putting the website together before it's publically
announced? Does no-one on this list get their code in a usable shape
before they announce their projects?

It's not about the site. It's about the consortium or whatever
organisation we're about to form. That's a *big* difference.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
How can we join
something that doesnt exist and that we havnt been told about?

If you can find time to criticise something that doesn't exist yet,
perhaps you could answer that one for me.

You can't be serious with such statement.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
industry, which i view as being quite different.

So there are good corporates and bad corporates?

You haven't read one of my previous emails i posted here i guess.
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2004/01/0063.html

Post by Daniel James
If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis?

Do we want to serve companies or do we want to serve the community?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
But the last few months has seen a big increase in corporate
stakes in linux.

I would say the last few years, but I take your point.

Post by Tim Orford
I beleive that the controversies are only just
beginning to be felt.

Quite true - I'm hoping we can avoid exactly this kind of problem by
bringing the pro audio industry in from the cold.

The "project" as it is now isn't going to help the lad community and its
members leading various projects.

Post by Daniel James
They're not going
away, and neither are we.

Post by Tim Orford
There has always been disagreement over
how much their involvement is a good thing.

Consider this - we have dyne:bolic as a member, which is an avowedly
anti-corporate project. So far, Microsoft has not asked to join.

What's your point?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
The main danger for
me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.

I don't see that happening in pro audio. Worry about Lindows if you
like.

You're ignoring it. See my previous email.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford

Post by Daniel James
If you check the management
boards of organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll
notice that libre software projects don't get any representation
there at all.

I'm not sure its a fair comparison.

They are industry consortia addressing a particular niche market. OK,
we may not have their funding, but the principle is the same.

Post by Tim Orford
But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors.

Exactly. To protect the interests of the lad community should be
priority #1. How it's done is a matter of discussion and reaching
consensus. This is the place for such things.

Post by Daniel James
I do appreciate the danger, I just wish some people would actually
wait to see what linuxaudio.org actually is before supporting or
criticising it.

I guess *now* most lad members have seen it.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
I cant imagine why you chose
not to discuss it openly

I did not choose that, I just didn't discuss it in your preferred
forum - which is not the same thing.

You're clearly underestimating the importance of lad. Or you're ignoring
it purposely.

"Our goal is to encourage widespread code re-use and cooperation, and to
provide a common forum for all audio related software projects and an
exchange point for a number of other special-interest mailing lists.

The prime task for developers is the creation of unified interfaces that
allow existing applications to interoperate." from
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org

http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/subscribe.php3

There's 700 LAD subscribers and lots more reading it on the web.
The number is growing with each month.
How many did you contact? 30?

AFAIK It's been here since - 1996 or 1997? that's 7-8 years. It has
become a traditional meeting point for most linux audio developers. It's
the linux audio developer community.

Post by Daniel James
Actually, I just wanted to make
sure that I was doing the right thing before making a public
announcement, so I asked the LAD members I knew first.

Why ask just a few lad members if you can ask them on lad?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.

I won't.

You did. And still do.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
The aim of the Linuxaudio.org consortium is to
promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
professional audio use.
Thats ok for a press release, but what does it mean in practice?

We'll find out.

Let's find it out here.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
Its way too vague.

Exactly.

Post by Daniel James
I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is
vague?

About every part. What is it? Why should it be a consortium? Is it a
legal entity? Is it protecting oss? Is it protecting the lad community?
Is it promoting oss projects led by lad members?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
What exactly are you promoting?

Whatever the members are doing, I suppose.

Which members? Companies? You want to promote what companies are doing?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
Its also a very wide range of companies you have there

Hardly. Which ones aren't involved in Linux audio? We've got audio
hardware, Linux distributions and audio applications represented.

Post by Tim Orford
No offence to these companies, but do i really want Mandrake and
4Front speaking for me?

This is your key misconception, and I think Marek's as well. Firstly,
consortium members can only speak for themselves. The consortium as a
whole can only speak for its members. If you don't join, it won't be
speaking for you.

Why do we need this?
The lad community needs something else. First of all they deserve the
*respect* for their work. Lots of technologies and standards were born
here on LAD, such as Jack(laaga discussions and the name of jack) or
ladspa, ZKM is growing into a larger LAD conference although it will be
the second year and it's being announced *here*. So it's not just my or
Tims favorite forum.

What i had in mind was a foundation consisting of lad members, that is
natural persons, which may or may not be employed by any company. A
foundation as a legal entity governed by law, protecting the interests
of lad members, consisting of *elected* lad members.

[Chris Cannam]

Post by Marek Peteraj
I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to destroy the importance
of LAD with your ignorance.

I hadn't intended to join this thread, but this kind of talk is
ridiculous.

As far as I can see, Daniel has had an idea for something, polled a
few familiar names to see if there would be any interest, found that
there might be, taken the initiative in talking to a number of
industry contacts, created a provisional website and prepared to
announce the consortium project. This is surely the moral equivalent
of the way practically any successful free software project starts
up: by producing some decent code for people to work from and
releasing it, rather than creating half a dozen web forums and
spending hours on IRC discussing what colour the logo should be and
whether drop shadows are cool or a bit last century.

Now Daniel has his own agenda, and you have yours, and others here
have their own, and they're different enough for you to be arguing
about them now. So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
here endlessly before anything could be done, nothing would be done?
Surely the lesson from any successful free software project is that
you have to have a kernel of a worthwhile implementation before you
throw your idea open to ridicule. If the people who are actually
trying to do work in and with and around this consortium perceive, as
the project runs, that Daniel is too autocratic or the consortium in
general is being too ineffectual or the balance of power is wrong,
then it will change or it will fail. Personally I think he has a
good idea and he's going about it in a reasonable, if hurried, way.
There's room for discussion, but at this stage I think an energetic
attempt to do more-or-less the right thing is much better than
nothing.

Now of course I'm biased because I work on Rosegarden and Rosegarden
is represented in the members list. And Rosegarden is an enterprise
with a commercial eye, just like Ardour and some of the other free
software audio projects that we all love so much. So I knew about
this before it turned up on here. But it's a brief, informal
acquaintance, and I think anyone who looks at this and thinks there's
a big cabal making strange legal promises to each other is wrong.

I can entirely understand people feeling frustrated that they didn't
know about this, but it is true that it's at a very early stage, and
that sort of thing always happens no matter what you do. For
example, one reason there were no Rosegarden developers at the first
ZKM meeting was that it was only announced on LAD, and none of the
Rosegarden developers were subscribed to LAD at the time, and I
remember some misplaced frustration that nobody had bothered to tell
us about it. Daniel may not have contacted LAD about his idea, but
at least he contacted many of the people on the projects that he knew
about directly. I have two points here: it's wrong to think of LAD
as the one distinct voice of the community because it's a very
self-selecting group; and being resentful is counterproductive and
churlish, because nobody is trying to get at you in the first place.
Fix the mistakes, don't moan about them.


Chris

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Chris Cannam

Post by Marek Peteraj
I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to destroy the importance
of LAD with your ignorance.

I hadn't intended to join this thread, but this kind of talk is
ridiculous.
As far as I can see, Daniel has had an idea for something, polled a
few familiar names to see if there would be any interest, found that
there might be, taken the initiative in talking to a number of
industry contacts, created a provisional website and prepared to
announce the consortium project. This is surely the moral equivalent
of the way practically any successful free software project starts
up: by producing some decent code for people to work from and
releasing it, rather than creating half a dozen web forums

What are you talking about? I'm suggesting to keep the community in one
place, and build it around something which has got tradition and a
growing number of members/subscribers. The linuxaudio.org is more an
attempt to split the community IMHO.

Post by Chris Cannam
So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
here endlessly before anything could be done, nothing would be done?

Jack, ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.

Post by Chris Cannam
Surely the lesson from any successful free software project is that
you have to have a kernel of a worthwhile implementation before you
throw your idea open to ridicule. If the people who are actually
trying to do work in and with and around this consortium perceive, as
the project runs, that Daniel is too autocratic or the consortium in
general is being too ineffectual or the balance of power is wrong,
then it will change or it will fail. Personally I think he has a
good idea and he's going about it in a reasonable, if hurried, way.
There's room for discussion, but at this stage I think an energetic
attempt to do more-or-less the right thing is much better than
nothing.

So discussion means nothing to you?

Post by Chris Cannam
I can entirely understand people feeling frustrated that they didn't
know about this, but it is true that it's at a very early stage, and
that sort of thing always happens no matter what you do. For
example, one reason there were no Rosegarden developers at the first
ZKM meeting was that it was only announced on LAD, and none of the
Rosegarden developers were subscribed to LAD at the time,

Well, i'm glad you are now. :) ZKM was announced publicly ~6 months
before.

Post by Chris Cannam
and I
remember some misplaced frustration that nobody had bothered to tell
us about it. Daniel may not have contacted LAD about his idea, but
at least he contacted many of the people on the projects that he knew
about directly.

Why do you think that linuxaudio.org consortium is going to solve
exactly this issue?
How about those who are still not subscribed to LAD or reading its
archives and those who don't know about linuxaudio.org?

Post by Chris Cannam
I have two points here: it's wrong to think of LAD
as the one distinct voice of the community because it's a very
self-selecting group;

...of 700+ people (and growing)?

Marek

[Fred Gleason]

Post by Daniel James
What matters to me is that corporate interests don't overrule other
interests. Linuxaudio.org is mostly composed of libre software
projects, who get a seat on the management board, just like companies
- regardless of size. If you check the management boards of
organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll notice that libre
software projects don't get any representation there at all.

And I think there are some good reasons for that. Think about it for a
moment: *who* is empowered to speak authoritatively for a "project"? Who
has the right to decide who gets the seat on the management board? The
copyright holder? What about others? Should it be limited to those who have
made substantial contributions of code? What about the folks who write
documentation, or maintain web sites? And who decides what constitutes
"substantial"? While some projects (Apache comes to mind immediately) have
instituted a more formal organization, for most projects, this lack of
structure gives rise to thorny issues of governance and control. This is
precisely why an organization such as the FSF exists: to provide a legal,
authoritative entity to hold and (if needs be) enforce copyright.

A good working definition of what constitutes a "project" is needed here as
well. One person with an account on SF can found a "project" -- does that
entitle that person to a seat on the board with rights and powers equal to
those of ALSA, Jack and the others?

You see, Daniel, there are some real questions here that need clarification.
I've just scratched the surface. That's what a community is for. *None* of
us have all the answers -- you can't do this alone! "A couple of weeks" is a
miniscule amount of time to spend in organizing an initiative of this scope.

Cheers!


|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: |
| The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of |
| time, and the last ten percent take the other ninety percent. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

[Daniel James]

Post by Fred Gleason
You see, Daniel, there are some real questions here that need
clarification. I've just scratched the surface.

You're quite right. I'm not sure how the significance of a particular
project can be factored in to the amount of influence in management
decisions - or if it should be. The same would go for large and small
companies.

Post by Fred Gleason
That's what a
community is for. *None* of us have all the answers -- you can't
do this alone!

Absolutely. But someone has to take the first step.

Post by Fred Gleason
"A couple of weeks" is a miniscule amount of time
to spend in organizing an initiative of this scope.

I agree - but it should be sufficient to talk to a few people, put a
simple website together, write one press release, and make an
announcement. Already I'm being criticised for spending too long on
preparation!

Cheers

Daniel

[Fred Gleason]

Post by Daniel James
You're quite right. I'm not sure how the significance of a particular
project can be factored in to the amount of influence in management
decisions - or if it should be. The same would go for large and small
companies.

It's a conundrum, no question about it. The point though, is that some sort
of precise *identity* needs to attach to members. At the end of the day,
that likely means membership will need to be limited to either individuals or
corporations (a legal "person"). I think "project" is too vague and
amorphous a term.

Post by Daniel James
I agree - but it should be sufficient to talk to a few people, put a
simple website together, write one press release, and make an
announcement. Already I'm being criticised for spending too long on
preparation!

Advocacy can be a thankless task. By all means, put the website up, talk to
people, send press releases if you wish. It's a necessary starting point.
But I'd strongly recommend holding off the *legal* establishment of any
entity until a broader consensus exists. I suspect that a lot of the
suspicion which has been expressed in this thread was engendered by the
appearance that much of the prior discussion to this point took place via
private communications. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but there
does come a time when those discussions need to "go public". Such public
discussion needs to happen well before any "official" establishment of an
organization.

Part of the confusion, too, comes from some vagueness in your terms. What
exactly do you mean when you say you're "launching" Linuxaudio.org today?
Are you putting a website up? Instituting some sort of legal entity? What
exactly is the legal organizational structure of the proposed organization?
Lots of unanswered questions here...

Cheers!


|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A man is known by the company he organizes. |
| -- Ambrose Bierce |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

[Daniel James]

Post by Fred Gleason
The point though, is that
some sort of precise *identity* needs to attach to members.

At the moment this is expected to be by nominated representative to
the management board. If someone is representing a project publically
and they shouldn't be, then I think that would be fairly obvious.

Post by Fred Gleason
I think "project" is too vague and amorphous a term.

I guess libre software projects are amorphous. They aren't
individuals, or companies, or organisations in the traditional sense.

Post by Fred Gleason
I'd strongly recommend holding off
the *legal* establishment of any entity until a broader consensus
exists.

Quite right. linuxaudio.org has no legal status for the time being.

Post by Fred Gleason
I suspect that a lot of the suspicion which has been
expressed in this thread was engendered by the appearance that much
of the prior discussion to this point took place via private
communications.

Hardly private, since everyone seems to have found out about it within
days. I just don't believe in opening my mouth in public until I've
got something worthwhile to say.

Post by Fred Gleason
there does come a time when those discussions need to "go public".

Absolutely.

Post by Fred Gleason
Such public discussion needs to happen well before any "official"
establishment of an organization.

But then we're back to discussing something that doesn't exist.

Post by Fred Gleason
Part of the confusion, too, comes from some vagueness in your
terms. What exactly do you mean when you say you're "launching"
Linuxaudio.org today?

Making the website more obvious, a press release. That's all.

Quite honestly, if I had proposed this idea with no support from the
community it would have been shot down in flames - and rightly so.

Cheers

Daniel

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Fred Gleason
The point though, is that
some sort of precise *identity* needs to attach to members.

At the moment this is expected to be by nominated representative to
the management board. If someone is representing a project publically
and they shouldn't be, then I think that would be fairly obvious.

Post by Fred Gleason
I think "project" is too vague and amorphous a term.

I guess libre software projects are amorphous. They aren't
individuals, or companies, or organisations in the traditional sense.

Post by Fred Gleason
I'd strongly recommend holding off
the *legal* establishment of any entity until a broader consensus
exists.

Quite right.

Agreed.

Post by Daniel James
linuxaudio.org has no legal status for the time being.

The problem is, in my eyes the term 'linuxaudio' represents linux audio
developers, linux audio users, linux audio projects.

Consortium.linuxaudio.org would then be representing a consortium.
or foundation.linuxaduio.org for that matter.
M

[Daniel James]

Post by Marek Peteraj
The problem is, in my eyes the term 'linuxaudio' represents linux
audio developers, linux audio users, linux audio projects.

As much as I'd like to have seen definitive portals for Linux (in
general) emerge in the 90's, that didn't happen. Arguably kernel.org
is more official and important than linux.org or linux.com.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Consortium.linuxaudio.org would then be representing a consortium.
or foundation.linuxaduio.org for that matter.

That's a good suggestion. If there was a project to build a portal for
users, rather than just a simple site for industry partners, then
linuxaudio.org could be the stepping off point for sub-sites. That's
the sort of project I could imagine the consortium helping to make
happen in future. Don't forget linux-sound.org is already doing a
good job though.

Cheers

Daniel

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
The problem is, in my eyes the term 'linuxaudio' represents linux
audio developers, linux audio users, linux audio projects.

As much as I'd like to have seen definitive portals for Linux (in
general) emerge in the 90's, that didn't happen. Arguably kernel.org
is more official and important than linux.org or linux.com.

That doesn't mean we should go down that path. Let's learn from that.
What's the best term that accurately identifies both linux audio
developers and linux audio users? I think it's 'linux audio'.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
Consortium.linuxaudio.org would then be representing a consortium.
or foundation.linuxaduio.org for that matter.

That's a good suggestion. If there was a project to build a portal for
users, rather than just a simple site for industry partners, then
linuxaudio.org could be the stepping off point for sub-sites. That's
the sort of project I could imagine the consortium helping to make
happen in future.

We should first attract linux audio developers and users. Industries
come next. They won't be interested if there's a total of 10 la users
around.

Post by Daniel James
Don't forget linux-sound.org is already doing a
good job though.

Agreed. But there are ways of further improving it. I think that it
should be a part of a larger linux audio infrastructure. LAD, LAU,
djcj.org definitely belong to that infrastructure aswell.

Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Fred Gleason
You see, Daniel, there are some real questions here that need
clarification. I've just scratched the surface.

You're quite right. I'm not sure how the significance of a particular
project can be factored in to the amount of influence in management
decisions - or if it should be. The same would go for large and small
companies.

Post by Fred Gleason
That's what a
community is for. *None* of us have all the answers -- you can't
do this alone!

Absolutely. But someone has to take the first step.

Post by Fred Gleason
"A couple of weeks" is a miniscule amount of time
to spend in organizing an initiative of this scope.

I agree - but it should be sufficient to talk to a few people, put a
simple website together, write one press release, and make an
announcement. Already I'm being criticised for spending too long on
preparation!

Ok so you took the first step, i said,
1. let's wait a bit
(your answer - we can't)
2. let's discuss it on lad
(it's your favorite forum)
3. let's do a foundation...
(...)
4. ...but let's discuss it on lad first, let's postpone the launch
(You're demanding veto power again.) (!)

That + you calling yourself a director without any election + keeping it
all confidential *definitely* *doesn't* sounds like a first step.

Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Tim Orford
Marek has objections which appear to have some weight

Only if you don't know what we're doing. Given that the project isn't
even underway yet and has only been in preparation for the last
couple of weeks, it's premature for Marek to attempt to both force
the direction of the project

The lad community should force the direction from the start. Not me!

Post by Daniel James
and prevent the site from being
launched.

Preventing?? It's online. People have seen it.

Post by Daniel James
He wanted the domain name himself for a different site, but
he didn't bother to register it.

I wanted to propose (here!) the registration of linuxaudio.org as the
main entrance for linux audio developer and user community on the
internet and i wanted to offer money needed to register the site.
There wasn't much time left to do so.

Marek

[Fred Gleason]

On Tuesday 13 January 2004 18:09, Marek Peteraj and Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj

I hope we can stop this childish attitude and actually get some work
done (this is usually the moment when people start to disappear).

So keeping such projects confidential until "ready", and not accepting a
community place although it's been here from 1997 or so isn't childish?

WHOA! Down boys, down... :)

First, for the innocent bystanders to this thread, the discussion is about the
following:

http://www.linuxaudio.org/en

It looks to be an interesting approach. As I understand it, consortia in the
past have had two primary reasons for being:

1) LICENSING -- It's fairly common for organizations in a consortium to
cross-license the rights to various technologies to each other. While, as
Open Source / Libre developers, *code* licensing is is basically a done deal,
the same can not be said for issues of *patent* licensing. While the
LinuxAudio.org policy does not go so far as to actually cross-license patents
between members, I think it does seek to provide some sort of framework in
which to mediate disputes over such matters independently of lawyers and the
legal system, particularly in the area of reverse engineering. See Policy
Point #6. As such, I think that is a potentially valuable benefit of
membership.

2) ANTI-TRUST -- Such "open to all" consortia/trade groups have also
traditionally been employed as a platform for discussion and implementation
of industry-wide initiatives that could otherwise be enjoined by anti-trust
law. I believe that this aspect was throughly discussed here a few months
back in the thread concerning the MMA.

That said, I do sense a little bit of undue haste in the launch of this
organization. I only became aware of it myself about a week ago, at which
time active debate concerning some of the core Policy Points was still going
on, debate that resulted in significant change to the wording of at least one
of those points. I think that for an initiative of this sort to succeed,
community consensus -- from both commercial companies *and* part time
developers -- is key. LAD would indeed seem to be one of the natural fora in
which to seek this consensus.

Cheers!


|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten |
| your aim. |
| -- George Santayana |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

[Samuel S Chessman]

Perhaps a little more openness would be appreciated by the
open source community.

"I wonder who they are,
the men who really run this land.
And I wonder why they run it
with such a thoughless hand.
What are their names, and
on what street do they live?
I'd like to ride right over
this afternoon and give
them a piece of my mind
about peace for mankind.
Peace is not an awful lot to ask."

David Crosby
What are their names?
If I could only remember my name. 1971
((C) Guerrilla Music/BMI)

Your temporary html page seems a little rushed.

<html>
<head>
<title>Linux Audio dot Org</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
This site will be launched on 14th January 2004.<br><br>

In the meantime, please contact daniel at linuxaudio dot org for any enquiries.
</bodies.

</bod></bod>

[Bob Ham]

I thought I'd provide a little dramatisation of what this whole debacle
looks like to me:

<Daniel> LAD_Dude_1: Hey dude, I've got this idea for a group to help
linux audio developers and corporate interests get along better, what do
you think?
<LAD_Dude_1> Daniel: Sounds like a good idea.
<Daniel> LAD_Dude_2: What do you think?
<LAD_Dude_2> Daniel: Aye, sounds good. Going to need a web site and
mailing list and whatnot tho.
<Daniel> Aye, I'll register linuxaudio.org
<Daniel> Mandrake (TM): You interested?
<Mandrake (TM)> Daniel: Definately
<Marek (overhearing)> Daniel: Hey! I was going to do that! You
bastard!
<Marek> LAD_People: HEY! DANIEL'S STARTED A WHOLE LINUX AUDIO
DEVELOPER'S CONSORTIUM WITHOUT CONSULTING ANY OF US!
<LAD_Dude_3> WTF?!
<LAD_Dude_4> What a bastard!
<LAD_Dude_5> How dare you!
<Daniel> Hold on a sec, dudes, it doesn't exist yet. I haven't even
written a web page!
<LAD_Dude_4> What a bastard!
<LAD_Dude_5> How dare you!

To those shouting "bastard!", I say: chill, for the moment at least.

I also provide below a mail I sent to Joern Nettingsmeier before
christmas. While Daniel's and my ideas differ somewhat in the necessary
approach; co-operation vs defense, our aim is the same: to help bring
linux audio software out of bedrooms and into studios while maintaining
the freedom of that software. It's worth noting that whether or not a
party is a corporation or a tree hugging hippy (to epitomise the two
sides of that coin) is irrelevant; the issue is whether or not they
support free software, or the kind of proprietary software that stifles
the communities that have developed around places like the
linux-audio-dev list. I know plenty of tree hugging hippies that are
more than willing to embrace propietary software, and plenty of
corporations prepared to stand firm on the principles of software
freedom.

The mailing list I wanted to create is one that I expect will come to
exist at linuxaudio.org. The linuxaudio.org site is only the second
linux audio site I have noted that consistently uses the term "libre" or
"free" instead of "open source" or "linux" software (the other site
being AGNULA's; and guess which new consortium they're members of) and
that goes some way toward allaying any fears I personally have about the
consortium sucking up to the proprietary software industry.

Anyway, another too-long email to add to the fire, but I hope it might
dampen rather enflame it.

Bob

-----Forwarded Message-----

Subject: Re: hosting a free-audio-dev list
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:08:22 +0000

Hi there,
I was wondering if it would be possible to start a mailing list to
discuss issues of freedom specifically relating to audio software. I
know I feel restricted by something like a taboo about free vs
proprietary discussions on linux-audio-dev. I think a place where that
kind of discussion was encouraged would be beneficial.

hmmm. i must confess i'm not sure this is a good idea...
i don't know why you perceive a taboo on lad to discuss such issues -
you are right, this topic is rare, but then, IMNSHO it rarely leads to
productive results :)

This is the "taboo" that I speak of :) Ie, the view that wooly issues
of freedom do little to progress the technical state of the software
while introducing extra noise.

my fear with a list like you propose is that it might become an
"advocacy" forum with all kinds of people with not much else to do
sounding off about <your favourite licence here> and getting into all
kinds of flamewars.

And this extends the taboo :) No, "talking about freedom" does not mean
discerning the finer points of freedom from the perspectives of GPL and
BSD licenses (at least, not to me.) There are plenty of other forums
for that already, eg slashdot.org. What I want to talk about is
Steinberg. And Apple. And Microsoft. And other threats to the free
audio software community. For that matter, I want a place where the
free audio software community can flourish. For *that* matter, I *want*
a free audio software community; support for freedom is somewhat soft on
LAD. This is the time when it needs to be cemented. Linux (and free
software) is moving places and the companies that hang on to the
proprietary idea will be throwing their own little microsoft-like
wobblies when the time comes. A forum that encourages support against
this can be nothing but a good thing in my eyes. The fact that LAD is
linux-specific is another issue; freedom is an issue enclosing
proprietary OSes and free OSes alike.
To take a crystal example, the GMPI group reflects the need for such a
community. As far as I know, there is nobody whose express purpose in
being involved in GMPI is to represent the interests of software
freedom. A place where such advocacy could come from would be a good
thing IMHO.

possible for you host a free-audio-dev list?

if more people on the lists share your view and would like to have such
a list, certainly.
although i would prefer something like "linux-audio-freedom" or
whatever, to keep things consistent. otoh, if it's not linux and lad
community centered, then i think it should be hosted somewhere else

The reason for me asking was purely a technical one; you were the first
person I thought of when I asked "who can host a free audio developers
list?" :) Of course, being in close proximity to linux-audio-dev would
be a plus. And free-audio-dev is consistent as well :) Though, if not
being linux-specific puts you off, I shall ask elsewhere.
Bob

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Bob Ham
I thought I'd provide a little dramatisation of what this whole debacle
<Daniel> LAD_Dude_1: Hey dude, I've got this idea for a group to help
linux audio developers and corporate interests get along better, what do
you think?
<LAD_Dude_1> Daniel: Sounds like a good idea.
<Daniel> LAD_Dude_2: What do you think?
<LAD_Dude_2> Daniel: Aye, sounds good. Going to need a web site and
mailing list and whatnot tho.
<Daniel> Aye, I'll register linuxaudio.org
<Daniel> Mandrake (TM): You interested?
<Mandrake (TM)> Daniel: Definately
<Marek (overhearing)> Daniel: Hey! I was going to do that! You
bastard!

Sorry Bob, but i never used one swear word in this discussion.
And Daniels project definitely isn't what i was going to do.

Post by Bob Ham
<Marek> LAD_People: HEY! DANIEL'S STARTED A WHOLE LINUX AUDIO
DEVELOPER'S CONSORTIUM WITHOUT CONSULTING ANY OF US!

That wasn't my point. I'm sad it's still not clear what i'm talking
about.

Post by Bob Ham
<LAD_Dude_3> WTF?!
<LAD_Dude_4> What a bastard!
<LAD_Dude_5> How dare you!
<Daniel> Hold on a sec, dudes, it doesn't exist yet. I haven't even
written a web page!
<LAD_Dude_4> What a bastard!
<LAD_Dude_5> How dare you!
To those shouting "bastard!", I say: chill, for the moment at least.
I also provide below a mail I sent to Joern Nettingsmeier before
christmas. While Daniel's and my ideas differ somewhat in the necessary
approach; co-operation vs defense, our aim is the same: to help bring
linux audio software out of bedrooms and into studios while maintaining
the freedom of that software. It's worth noting that whether or not a
party is a corporation or a tree hugging hippy (to epitomise the two
sides of that coin) is irrelevant; the issue is whether or not they
support free software, or the kind of proprietary software that stifles
the communities that have developed around places like the
linux-audio-dev list. I know <snip> plenty of
corporations prepared to stand firm on the principles of software
freedom.

Could you name those audio related?

Marek

[Fred Gleason]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Bob Ham
I know <snip> plenty of
corporations prepared to stand firm on the principles of software
freedom.

Could you name those audio related?

AudioScience
http://www.audioscience.com/
High-end DSP soundcards with GPL'ed drivers.

SuSE
http://www.suse.de/
Primary sponsor of the ALSA project

Salem Communications
http://www.salem.cc/
http://www.salemradiolabs.com/
Primary sponsor of the Rivendell project

*Lots* more, I'm sure...

Cheers!


|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| True leadership is the art of changing a group from what it is to what |
| it ought to be. |
| -- Virginia Allan |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Fred Gleason

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Bob Ham
I know <snip> plenty of
corporations prepared to stand firm on the principles of software
freedom.

Could you name those audio related?

AudioScience
http://www.audioscience.com/
High-end DSP soundcards with GPL'ed drivers.
SuSE
http://www.suse.de/
Primary sponsor of the ALSA project
Salem Communications
http://www.salem.cc/
http://www.salemradiolabs.com/
Primary sponsor of the Rivendell project
*Lots* more, I'm sure...

Ok, i'll add http://www.lionstracs.com to that list.
That's 4 companies total. Anybody knows of other companies that directly
support or sponsor linux audio development?

Marek

[Doug Wellington]

Post by Marek Peteraj
Ok, i'll add http://www.lionstracs.com to that list.

Holy CRAP! My local sales guy was at NAMM looking at the Mediastation X-76 for me. Have you seen the price of this thing??? M.S.R.P $12,000.00!!!

For $12k, I can buy a V-Synth, an Edirol DV-7PR, a nice projector (HP VP-6120 anyone?) and a computer AND have money left over!!! (And probably do way more than you can do with the X-76!)

Sigh,
-Doug

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Doug Wellington

Post by Marek Peteraj
Ok, i'll add http://www.lionstracs.com to that list.

Holy CRAP! My local sales guy was at NAMM looking at the Mediastation X-76 for me. Have you seen the price of this thing??? M.S.R.P $12,000.00!!!
For $12k, I can buy a V-Synth, an Edirol DV-7PR, a nice projector (HP VP-6120 anyone?) and a computer AND have money left over!!! (And probably do way more than you can do with the X-76!)

That means - the more it succeeds the more the involved oss linux audio
projects will get support. A few LAD members already do work for
Lionstracs.

Marek

[Doug Wellington]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Marek Peteraj
Ok, i'll add http://www.lionstracs.com to that list.

[snip]
Have you seen the price of this thing??? M.S.R.P $12,000.00!!!

That means - the more it succeeds the more the involved oss
linux audio projects will get support. A few LAD members
already do work for Lionstracs.

But still. I'm all for the team, rah, rah, rah, but at $12k, or
even at $8k, I'd still feel like a purchase was me single-handedly
trying to support the whole group! As I said before, for that kind
of money, I can buy a whole bunch of other gear that will do more.
Idealism aside, it's going to have to be commercially viable, and
at this stage, it's not, IMHO.

I can buy an Edirol controller keyboard, and a laptop with more disk
space, more screen resolution, and a midi interface, and an audio
interface, and a projector, and a PA (!) for less than this thing,
and I can run all the same apps, since it's *still Linux*...

Or, as I said last time, I could get a V-Synth and a DV-7PR
and not even have to worry about downloading the rpm-du-jour...

And you know, there's something silly about the design. They
should move the keys to the right and put the mod wheel and
pitch bend just to the left of the keys, not way up in the
top left corner like I see on the flyer!

Bottom line, the X-76 is a GREAT idea, but it just isn't cost
effective...

-Doug

[Daniel James]

Post by Doug Wellington
My local sales guy was at NAMM looking at the Mediastation X-76 for
me. Have you seen the price of this thing??? M.S.R.P
$12,000.00!!!

That might seem expensive compared to the cost of the hardware, but
it's a complete system. Whether this is good value depends on how
much you value your time, because you could spend a couple of years
developing your own. Custom Pro Tools rigs can cost up to US$100,000.

Cheers

Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org

[Doug Wellington]

Post by Daniel James
That might seem expensive compared to the cost of the hardware, but
it's a complete system. Whether this is good value depends on how
much you value your time, because you could spend a couple of years
developing your own. Custom Pro Tools rigs can cost up to US$100,000.

I appreciate that it's trying to be a complete system, that's why I
was interested in it! :-) So, are you saying this thing can compete
with a $100,000 Alsihad rig? [Cleans coffee off of screen.] Let's
get real here...! :-( You try to pitch it to a professional studio
that way and you'll get laughed right out of town!

<brag>
OK, some context? I'm one of the organizers of Different Skies, an
ambient and space music festival which involves both audio and video.
Last September, we had 14 musicians and one artist dedicated to just
video. I'm an ambient/space musician and video artist. I'm also a
developer. (CoreAudio and ALSA drivers, VST, AU and LADSPA plugins,
mod_perl and mySQL, etc.) I'm a unix and vms system administrator
for a living, which is what lets me afford my toys...
</brag>

I actually HAVE developed my own rig.

I don't care how good the X-76 is, there will still be a lot of
customization required for each artist, especially with the current
state of Linux audio and video. Not saying it won't happen, but
it isn't ready for prime time yet, especially not at this price
point...

Reminds me of that old saying, "Linux is only free if your time
isn't worth anything"...

Sincerely,
-Doug

[Daniel James]

Post by Doug Wellington
So, are you saying this thing can
compete with a $100,000 Alsihad rig?

No, but then I've not tried either. Realistically, I'd expect the
service level to be very different. For US $0.1m I'd expect a lot of
hand holding.

Post by Doug Wellington
I actually HAVE developed my own rig.

Me too. It's clearly not aimed at either of us.

Post by Doug Wellington
Reminds me of that old saying, "Linux is only free if your time
isn't worth anything"...

I think that's a slogan used by Microsoft, which either belittles or
ignores the other meaning of free. All solutions cost something, but
there are plenty of people who are relatively time rich and cash
poor, most musicians included.

I have no idea whether the Lionstracs business model will succeed, but
what the pricing of the Mediastation suggests to me is that
specialist Linux audio companies might be better of dealing direct
with their end users than via middlemen and retailers. The
conventional 'channel' is designed for conventional products, and as
we know free software is not just another product.

Cheers

Daniel

[Matthias Nagorni]

Hello,

after I noticed that polyphony was completely broken in ams < 1.7.2
I rapidly fixed it (thanks to Fons Adriaensen for valueable hints).

Some of the patches used for the sound examples published by german
Keyboards magazine are now available for download as well.

You might also enjoy the new phaser instrument patch and its "Haunted
Castle"...

Have fun !

Matthias

[Dave Robillard]

Post by Matthias Nagorni
Hello,
after I noticed that polyphony was completely broken in ams < 1.7.2
I rapidly fixed it (thanks to Fons Adriaensen for valueable hints).

Very cool; my apologies for not getting the promised test cases in
quickly, I was away for the weekend.

Thanks.

[Doug Wellington]

Post by Daniel James

So, are you saying this thing can compete with a $100,000 Alsihad
rig?

No, but then I've not tried either. Realistically, I'd expect the
service level to be very different. For US $0.1m I'd expect a lot of
hand holding.

Heehee, for $12k I would still want a lot of handholding! :-)

Realistically, you can have an Alsihad rig for about this much, and
you would have instant compatibility with other studios, plus a HUGE
number of other people familiar with it who could help you out. Even
a Digi 002 only costs about $1200, and you still get the compatibility
with and support from all those other users. I use Final Cut Pro and
Adobe After Effects, each of which was less than a grand, and I get
awesome support on both of them! I'm pretty optimistic, but I still
don't think any Linux apps can match either of those two. And once
you start using dual 1280x1024 monitors, there's just no way you can
go back to an 800x600 touch screen! ;-)

Post by Daniel James

Reminds me of that old saying, "Linux is only free if your time
isn't worth anything"...

I think that's a slogan used by Microsoft, which either belittles
or ignores the other meaning of free.

Ouch! Now I'm being compared to Microsoft... :-(

I use that phrase because it's Reality(tm). Linux is certainly not
as "free" as people want to believe. RPM and similar mechanisms have
certainly helped, but there is still a LOT more time required to set
up a Linux box. (E.G. I unpacked my iMac, plugged it in, turned it
on, stuck in my application CD, clicked two buttons and I was up and
running, then I plugged in my HP printer and it just worked. Can you
do the same with Linux?) Now, honestly, I'm a geek, so I LOVE setting
things up the way *I* want them - I love downloading all the latest
patches, apps, jack, gtk+, sndfile, etc, etc, but I'm definitely not
mainstream. And at some point though, I get tired of the rpm-du-jour
and I just want to make some music, or edit some video...

I'm guessing people like me (us?) are going to be interested in doing
it ourselves, and we'll do it differently. On the other hand, "artist"
types won't WANT to download anything or customize anything, they just
want it to work. (I could probably make quite a bit of money if I were
to do consulting for musicians who don't want to deal with the technical
side of things!) Think about how many musicians are out there that just
use the presets on all of their synths... (How many times have I seen
"synth programming" as a separate credit in CD liner notes...?)

Post by Daniel James
All solutions cost something, but there are plenty of people who are
relatively time rich and cash poor, most musicians included.

Linux is great for people like that. Is a $12k Lionstracs keyboard?

Post by Daniel James
I have no idea whether the Lionstracs business model will succeed,
but what the pricing of the Mediastation suggests to me is that
specialist Linux audio companies might be better of dealing direct
with their end users than via middlemen and retailers.

I think you're right about that...

While I wish Lionstracs all the best in their endeavors, I'm guessing
they are in the middle, trying to appeal to everyone, and they won't
end up really appealing to anyone. Do it yourselfers won't want to
spend that kind of money, and they'll want to do it differently, and
artists who want a turnkey solution won't like it because they won't
get the final complete product that they want/need for that kind of
money...

-Doug

[David Olofson]

On Tuesday 20 January 2004 15.44, Doug Wellington wrote:
[...]

Post by Doug Wellington
Reminds me of that old saying, "Linux is only free if your time
isn't worth anything"...

True, sort of, but you have to remember that "there's no such thing as
a free lunch."

The big difference is that when the job is done, the result is
*really* yours to keep. You won't find yourself forced to move to a
new environment a few years later, just because someone decides it's
time to change the whole environment to comply with the latest fads,
or because the actual owner of "your" software went out of business.

Paying some cash to get started quicker can end up being *very*
expensive down the road. That's one of the major reasons why
Free/Open Source solutions are becoming more and more popular.
Cutting the short term costs often has much lower priority,
especially in the embedded and turnkey fields, where systems tend to
hang around so long that the main reason to upgrade is that the
out-of-production silicon is getting too expensive, or totally
impossible to get by.


//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.- Audiality -----------------------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. |
| MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---

[Doug Wellington]

Post by David Olofson

Post by Doug Wellington
Reminds me of that old saying, "Linux is only free if your time
isn't worth anything"...

True, sort of, but you have to remember that "there's no such thing
as a free lunch."

TANSTAAFL - exactly! There's always a price. Either you do it
yourself, or you have someone else do it. Time vs. money...

Post by David Olofson
The big difference is that when the job is done, the result is
*really* yours to keep. You won't find yourself forced to move to a
new environment a few years later, just because someone decides it's
time to change the whole environment to comply with the latest fads,
or because the actual owner of "your" software went out of business.

Heehee... I know plenty of people still using "old" environments and
technology! Atari? Amiga? Moog? Sequential? Fender? Vox? How
about a nice TB-303 anybody...? I know people who still swear by
Opcode, while swearing *at* Gibson. I'm still using a 450 MHz P-II
running Win98se (and Microsoft is *still* supporting it)! My main
recording softare (Paris) hasn't been updated in years! Does that
mean I have to give it up? What about that old Studer??? Oh, that
old thing...? Heck, no technology is immune to the "obsolesence due
to latest and greatest" syndrome. Look at my Waldorf Microwave XT...
Sigh...

Post by David Olofson
Paying some cash to get started quicker can end up being *very*
expensive down the road.

Or not, depending... ;-)

Post by David Olofson
That's one of the major reasons why Free/Open Source solutions
are becoming more and more popular.

Ah, let me guess - you're an "Open Source Advocate" aren't you?

;-) ;-) ;-)

-Doug

Damn, $300 a year for Red Hat Enterprise? I thought it was free!!!

[Jan Depner]

Post by Doug Wellington
old thing...? Heck, no technology is immune to the "obsolesence due
to latest and greatest" syndrome. Look at my Waldorf Microwave XT...
Sigh...

Survey says---bzzzzzzzzzt. It's immune right up until something in the
hardware breaks and there are no replacements. This I know from
experience (spec'ing out systems for a fleet of ships). Or someone
decides that they're not supporting the latest hardware with their old
software leading to my favorite question - "So, how's that USB mouse
working out for you under NT?".


Jan

[David Olofson]

On Tuesday 20 January 2004 23.04, Doug Wellington wrote:
[...]

Post by Doug Wellington

Post by David Olofson
The big difference is that when the job is done, the result is
*really* yours to keep. You won't find yourself forced to move to
a new environment a few years later, just because someone decides
it's time to change the whole environment to comply with the
latest fads, or because the actual owner of "your" software went
out of business.

Heehee... I know plenty of people still using "old" environments
and technology! Atari? Amiga? Moog? Sequential? Fender? Vox?
How about a nice TB-303 anybody...? I know people who still swear
by Opcode, while swearing *at* Gibson. I'm still using a 450 MHz
P-II running Win98se (and Microsoft is *still* supporting it)!

I used a Pentium 166 running Win95 "original" (not OSR2, that is),
until the mainboard died recently. Then I moved the OS (yet another
time) to an "old" dual P-II 233 box. (Where it would obviously use
only one CPU and one of the two outputs on the video card.) It wasn't
until last week I *finally* installed Win2k on that box. The
seemingly indestructible Win95 install is still lying around on the
old drive, just in case... :-)

More interestingly; given that I use Linux 99% of the time, what did I
use this Win95 system for. Well, not for Windows development. I used
it to compile DOS (Real Mode) software, using Borland C++ for DOS.
(Which has a few compiler bugs I have to work around, of course.)

That is, DOS software that is still *in use*, running mostly on
embedded 386 and 486 hardware. The major problem here is that I have
to maintain and update that software (which is big, bloated and
broken by design) while trying to work on the new (Linux based)
replacement.

Post by Doug Wellington
My
main recording softare (Paris) hasn't been updated in years! Does
that mean I have to give it up?

Nope, not if it does the job.

Apparently, a few users still have working instruments from the
pre-Reologica era, based on 8 bit computers and/or analog signa
processing. I know some people are still using ABC80 computers for
various stuff.

However, if they need a new feature or run into a showstopper bug,
they're basically screwed. New software *and* hardware is the only
solution. Even if the companies behind the systems are still around,
the chances of them being willing or able to help with the old stuff
are minimal - and note that this is a low volume market, where it's
not unusual to implement new features just to close *one* deal.

Post by Doug Wellington
What about that old Studer??? Oh,
that old thing...? Heck, no technology is immune to the
"obsolesence due to latest and greatest" syndrome. Look at my
Waldorf Microwave XT... Sigh...

That's very true as well - but in the case of development tools,
customized software and other generally long lived stuff, the
important part is whether or not you can maintain it five or ten
years later, in case you're one of few remaining users by then.

Post by Doug Wellington

Post by David Olofson
Paying some cash to get started quicker can end up being *very*
expensive down the road.

Or not, depending... ;-)

Right. "Simple" turnkey systems like h/w synths, lab instruments and
most embedded computers in household appliances, cars etc, usually
just do the job, until the hardware breaks down eventually, or the
equipment is replaced for some reason. More complex systems usually
depend more on continous maintenance.

Post by Doug Wellington

Post by David Olofson
That's one of the major reasons why Free/Open Source solutions
are becoming more and more popular.

Ah, let me guess - you're an "Open Source Advocate" aren't you?
;-) ;-) ;-)

Why would you think... DOH! ;-)

Let's just say I've been burned a few times too many by dead
proprietary products, products that fail to do the job only because
modifications are impossible and/or illegal, and stuff like that. I
don't like the idea of depending on stuff I can't control.

Post by Doug Wellington
Damn, $300 a year for Red Hat Enterprise? I thought it was free!!!

Well, it is, except for any proprietary software they might have
thrown in. What you're paying for is pressed CDs, printed
documentation, and most importantly, support. If you only need the
Free software, you can just download it or get it on CDs from
somewhere else.

Can you get Windows at a lower price, if you don't need support and
stuff...? ;-)


//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.- Audiality -----------------------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. |
| MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---

[iriXx]

cute. and well said, Bob.

just to add my twopennyworth to it all:

this is my growing frustration in trying to bring together FLOSS people
through my work as Copyleftmedia. the harder i try, the more silly
bickering and in-fighting goes on over names, labels etc. i work hard to
try to bring together people from all parts of a community, a community
that could potentially rival the main proprietary firms - but it doesnt,
because we spend all our time shooting ourselves in the foot.

surely we, as advocates of Freedom / Libre-dom, should be the first to
promote that freedom and equality in the way we work together?

its sad to hear this sort of thing happening, and it puts to shame the
hard work that we do. in fact, such bickering is hypocrisy, it is
against the spirit of Free/Libre software itself as it was first set
out. it makes us look like fools.

is it not impossible for us all to pick up on Daniel's great idea, and
get behind it - which will promote the work of each one of us, as well
as FLOSS audio software? is it not possible for us to put aside our
personal agendas and self-promotion? for after all, that's not why we
write FLOSS software.

m~

Post by Bob Ham
I thought I'd provide a little dramatisation of what this whole debacle
<Daniel> LAD_Dude_1: Hey dude, I've got this idea for a group to help
linux audio developers and corporate interests get along better, what do
you think?
<LAD_Dude_1> Daniel: Sounds like a good idea.
<Daniel> LAD_Dude_2: What do you think?
<LAD_Dude_2> Daniel: Aye, sounds good. Going to need a web site and
mailing list and whatnot tho.
<Daniel> Aye, I'll register linuxaudio.org
<Daniel> Mandrake (TM): You interested?
<Mandrake (TM)> Daniel: Definately
<Marek (overhearing)> Daniel: Hey! I was going to do that! You
bastard!
<Marek> LAD_People: HEY! DANIEL'S STARTED A WHOLE LINUX AUDIO
DEVELOPER'S CONSORTIUM WITHOUT CONSULTING ANY OF US!
<LAD_Dude_3> WTF?!
<LAD_Dude_4> What a bastard!
<LAD_Dude_5> How dare you!
<Daniel> Hold on a sec, dudes, it doesn't exist yet. I haven't even
written a web page!
<LAD_Dude_4> What a bastard!
<LAD_Dude_5> How dare you!
To those shouting "bastard!", I say: chill, for the moment at least.
I also provide below a mail I sent to Joern Nettingsmeier before
christmas. While Daniel's and my ideas differ somewhat in the necessary
approach; co-operation vs defense, our aim is the same: to help bring
linux audio software out of bedrooms and into studios while maintaining
the freedom of that software. It's worth noting that whether or not a
party is a corporation or a tree hugging hippy (to epitomise the two
sides of that coin) is irrelevant; the issue is whether or not they
support free software, or the kind of proprietary software that stifles
the communities that have developed around places like the
linux-audio-dev list. I know plenty of tree hugging hippies that are
more than willing to embrace propietary software, and plenty of
corporations prepared to stand firm on the principles of software
freedom.
The mailing list I wanted to create is one that I expect will come to
exist at linuxaudio.org. The linuxaudio.org site is only the second
linux audio site I have noted that consistently uses the term "libre" or
"free" instead of "open source" or "linux" software (the other site
being AGNULA's; and guess which new consortium they're members of) and
that goes some way toward allaying any fears I personally have about the
consortium sucking up to the proprietary software industry.
Anyway, another too-long email to add to the fire, but I hope it might
dampen rather enflame it.
Bob
-----Forwarded Message-----

Subject: Re: hosting a free-audio-dev list
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:08:22 +0000

Hi there,
I was wondering if it would be possible to start a mailing list to
discuss issues of freedom specifically relating to audio software. I
know I feel restricted by something like a taboo about free vs
proprietary discussions on linux-audio-dev. I think a place where that
kind of discussion was encouraged would be beneficial.

hmmm. i must confess i'm not sure this is a good idea...
i don't know why you perceive a taboo on lad to discuss such issues -
you are right, this topic is rare, but then, IMNSHO it rarely leads to
productive results :)

This is the "taboo" that I speak of :) Ie, the view that wooly issues
of freedom do little to progress the technical state of the software
while introducing extra noise.

my fear with a list like you propose is that it might become an
"advocacy" forum with all kinds of people with not much else to do
sounding off about <your favourite licence here> and getting into all
kinds of flamewars.

And this extends the taboo :) No, "talking about freedom" does not mean
discerning the finer points of freedom from the perspectives of GPL and
BSD licenses (at least, not to me.) There are plenty of other forums
for that already, eg slashdot.org. What I want to talk about is
Steinberg. And Apple. And Microsoft. And other threats to the free
audio software community. For that matter, I want a place where the
free audio software community can flourish. For *that* matter, I *want*
a free audio software community; support for freedom is somewhat soft on
LAD. This is the time when it needs to be cemented. Linux (and free
software) is moving places and the companies that hang on to the
proprietary idea will be throwing their own little microsoft-like
wobblies when the time comes. A forum that encourages support against
this can be nothing but a good thing in my eyes. The fact that LAD is
linux-specific is another issue; freedom is an issue enclosing
proprietary OSes and free OSes alike.
To take a crystal example, the GMPI group reflects the need for such a
community. As far as I know, there is nobody whose express purpose in
being involved in GMPI is to represent the interests of software
freedom. A place where such advocacy could come from would be a good
thing IMHO.

possible for you host a free-audio-dev list?

if more people on the lists share your view and would like to have such
a list, certainly.
although i would prefer something like "linux-audio-freedom" or
whatever, to keep things consistent. otoh, if it's not linux and lad
community centered, then i think it should be hosted somewhere else

The reason for me asking was purely a technical one; you were the first
person I thought of when I asked "who can host a free audio developers
list?" :) Of course, being in close proximity to linux-audio-dev would
be a plus. And free-audio-dev is consistent as well :) Though, if not
being linux-specific puts you off, I shall ask elsewhere.
Bob

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

--Benjamin Franklin


|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL


.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

[Kai Vehmanen]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Chris Cannam
So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated

Jack, ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.

I promised myself not to get involved but now I just have to, although
only commenting this one specific statement.

JACK ---> Paul Davis. Discussions happened on LAD but mostly
concentrating on the n+1 different proposals and
implementations on doing an audio server, and of course,
making more proposals. Paul just went ahead and did it.

LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.

LAD web site
-> Jörn Nettingsmeier. Again, this is another mostly
one man show, that is run so well that others
have silently approved it as the official frontend
to LAD.

... so history shows (and personal memories of many endless discussions
prove it), that Chris is very much right - LAD is not one unified
community. We have personal agendas, ties to companies or developer
groups, we want _our_ solutions to succeed, etc, etc... but that's not
really new. But still, we desperately want to share our ideas about audio
development on Linux, and that is something that we share - whether it
fits our hidden agendas or not.

IMHO the magic of LAD is that it has survived the overblown egos of us
developers for so long, and even witnessed few cases of random
collaboration. :) And perhaps most importantly, LAD has been a fun place
to be - let's try to keep it that way.

--
http://www.eca.cx
Audio software for Linux!

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Kai Vehmanen

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Chris Cannam
So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated

Jack, ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.

I promised myself not to get involved but now I just have to, although
only commenting this one specific statement.
JACK ---> Paul Davis. Discussions happened on LAD but mostly
concentrating on the n+1 different proposals and
implementations on doing an audio server, and of course,
making more proposals. Paul just went ahead and did it.

That's what i said in my prevoius email. First discuss then take action.
Of course nobody is bound to first discuss then take action if it
concerns a oss sw project. But as i see it, a project such as jack or
ladspa is of higher importance, since it's also a standard, a technology
which affects a higher number of other specific audio apps. That's why i
think it was brought onto LAD.

LAD plays an important role in this regard. It's a pool of linuxaudio
developers leading their own projects or contributing. If i want to
propose a standard or an idea, i know that i can do it here since it's a
known access point for all la developers. It gets discussed so that i
can see if it fits the needs of other developers and what the other
needs of those developers are. This discussion is forming/shaping the
standard. Then it might or might not get adopted depending on its
importance.

The 'known access point for all la developers' is a part of linuxaudio
advocacy.

To summarize:

1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers
2. LAU should be a known access point for many linux audio users
3. a linux audio developer foundation should be an access point for the
music industry

OTOH linuxaudio.org is no oss sw project and affects whole community.

Post by Kai Vehmanen
LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.

Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul.

You just can't say that these projects we done without any discussion.
They were *born* on LAD. It doesn't matter if it's a one man action or
700 man action. If it's a one man action then the people responsible for
that action will get the respect they deserve. Nobody is going to
disagree that Paul is the father of Jack. :)

But i hope that nobody is going to disagree that LAD is the mother of
all standards that affect linux audio projects.

To Quote the JACK homepage:

"Jack was inspired by and partially designed during discussions on the
Linux Audio Developers mailing list. Particularly significant
contributions to those discussions came from (in alphabetical order):

* Paul Davis
* Richard Günther
* David Olofson
* Benno Sennoner
* Kai Vehmanen
Paul Davis was the principal author of the Jack API and of its sample
implementation. Very significant contributions have been made by:

* Kai Vehmanen
* Jack O'Quin
* Bob Ham
* Steve Harris
* Stephane Letz
Many other members of LAD contributed ideas and code to Jack."

Post by Kai Vehmanen
LAD web site
-> Jörn Nettingsmeier. Again, this is another mostly
one man show, that is run so well that others
have silently approved it as the official frontend
to LAD.
... so history shows (and personal memories of many endless discussions
prove it), that Chris is very much right - LAD is not one unified
community.

I say it already is, and we should all encourage such process.

Post by Kai Vehmanen
IMHO the magic of LAD is that it has survived the overblown egos of us
developers for so long, and even witnessed few cases of random
collaboration. :) And perhaps most importantly, LAD has been a fun place
to be - let's try to keep it that way.

It wasn't really a fun place to be during jack related discussions :)

Marek

[Steve Harris]

Post by Marek Peteraj
1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers

Maybe, but its not. I'm not even sure it should be. There a lot of people
who just dont have time to read LAD, and if there were even more
traffic then some existing subscribers would have to leave.

I'm not knocking LAD, but it can't (and shouldn't) speak for all linux
audio developers (and neither can or should linuxaudio.org). LAD has its
own agenda that not all linux audio developers will agree with.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Kai Vehmanen
LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.

Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul.

It was before my time.

- Steve

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj
1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers

Maybe, but its not. I'm not even sure it should be. There a lot of people
who just dont have time to read LAD,

If they have time to read slashdot, i'm sure they'll find time to read
LAD :)

Post by Steve Harris
and if there were even more
traffic then some existing subscribers would have to leave.

Lots of people have been reading LAD 'offline'.

Post by Steve Harris
LAD has its
own agenda that not all linux audio developers will agree with.

Could you explain?

Post by Steve Harris

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Kai Vehmanen
LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.

Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul.

It was before my time.

But you did contribute after?


"The original LADSPA proposal was included in an email to the Linux
Audio Developer Mailing List as part of an ongoing discussion on plugin
API design."

http://www.ladspa.org/original_api.txt
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2000/19991108-0307/0535.html
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2000/19991108-0307/0678.html
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2000/19991108-0307/0680.html
...etc

Marek

[holborn]

Hi!

My two cents:


For me, any kind or consortium, coorporation or what ever you want who promote
the use of audio with linux was a good idea, i hope this can help to their
members (projects) to be really competitive. That will be good for all.

But .... i have an ethical question with the use of this domain name, hope in
the future will be useful for all the linux users, with that name probaly
many people go to this domain serching audio solutions, and hope they will
find and don't lost their time. And that is a big effort for any kind of
project.

I think this kind o domain name need to be a project supported by the members,
not a members supported by the project.

Josep

[Steve Harris]

Post by holborn
the future will be useful for all the linux users, with that name probaly
many people go to this domain serching audio solutions, and hope they will
find and don't lost their time. And that is a big effort for any kind of
project.

Hmmm... lots of domain names look special when you see them in isolation,
but think of all the options:

linux-?music.(com|org|net)
linux-?sound.(com|org|net)
linux-?audio.(com|org|net)
music-?linux.(com|org|net)
...
l-a-[du].(com|org|net)
gnulinux-*.(com|org|net)
free-?software-*.(com|org|net)
...

this is one of hundreds of relevant sounding domain names, the chances of
someone picking it by change if they want to fond information are very
slim, they are far more likely to google.

- Steve

[Dave Phillips]

Greetings:

I thought about posting a response to the linuxaudio.org controversy
but I've opted for posting some numbers instead.

It was pointed out that LAD can claim more than 700 members now.
Very cool, I love it. I'm not sure exactly what those numbers mean, but
I do know that only about 1/10 of that figure actually post regularly to
the list. So out of the 700 only ~70 are consistent contributors. Again,
I don't know what the numbers signify. I guess it's [your meaning here].

On January 7 Linux Journal On-line posted my second monthly column
(this one about Planet CCRMA and AGNULA). I checked for the number of
reads this morning: +10000. That's right, more than ten thousand in
little over one week. I point this out not to shine my own light, but to
indicate again that far more people are interested in Linux audio
development than the mail lists' membership numbers suggest.

(Actually I have a lot of thoughts on all this stuff, but I'm really
just too busy here for further comment.)

Back to the hack...

Best regards,

Dave Phillips

[Alfons Adriaensen]

Post by Dave Phillips
It was pointed out that LAD can claim more than 700 members now.
Very cool, I love it. I'm not sure exactly what those numbers mean, but
I do know that only about 1/10 of that figure actually post regularly to
the list. So out of the 700 only ~70 are consistent contributors. Again,
I don't know what the numbers signify. I guess it's [your meaning here].
On January 7 Linux Journal On-line posted my second monthly column
(this one about Planet CCRMA and AGNULA). I checked for the number of
reads this morning: +10000. That's right, more than ten thousand in
little over one week. I point this out not to shine my own light, but to
indicate again that far more people are interested in Linux audio
development than the mail lists' membership numbers suggest.

This just reflects the difference between users and developers, AFAICS.
In any case, that column was mainly targeted at (potential) users rather
than developers. The latter know about CCRMA and AGNULA.

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Dave Phillips
I thought about posting a response to the linuxaudio.org controversy
but I've opted for posting some numbers instead.
It was pointed out that LAD can claim more than 700 members now.
Very cool, I love it. I'm not sure exactly what those numbers mean, but
I do know that only about 1/10 of that figure actually post regularly to
the list. So out of the 700 only ~70 are consistent contributors.

But is it a reason to keep discussions private, to create a private
mailinglist for that reason? Did anybody ask the developers of
linuxsampler and lilypond to join p-consortium? Those people are
definitely active contributors to the list. But the point is, all those
people could be asked through lad.

Post by Dave Phillips
On January 7 Linux Journal On-line posted my second monthly column
(this one about Planet CCRMA and AGNULA). I checked for the number of
reads this morning: +10000. That's right, more than ten thousand in
little over one week. I point this out not to shine my own light, but to
indicate again that far more people are interested in Linux audio
development than the mail lists' membership numbers suggest.

As Alfons already pointed out, those are people interested in linux
audio. They might not even be users. I guess you would get even more if
you posted it on slashdot.

Post by Dave Phillips
(Actually I have a lot of thoughts on all this stuff, but I'm really
just too busy here for further comment.)

Regarding [OT?] - agreed, it's OT on lad, i propose to rename the
p-consortium mailing list as Linux Audio Advocacy Mailing list (another
laa? or laad? :) and make it public.

Marek

[holborn]

Post by Steve Harris
Hmmm... lots of domain names look special when you see them in isolation,
linux-?music.(com|org|net)
linux-?sound.(com|org|net)
linux-?audio.(com|org|net)
music-?linux.(com|org|net)
...
l-a-[du].(com|org|net)
gnulinux-*.(com|org|net)
free-?software-*.(com|org|net)
...

Yes of course.... and with more of then i have the same ethical question ...

But see the example of linux-sound, is usefull for all the users, and sure
dont have in their members the relevance of the members of the consortium.
Then i agree with their name.

Post by Steve Harris
this is one of hundreds of relevant sounding domain names, the chances of
someone picking it by change if they want to fond information are very
slim, they are far more likely to google.

That's not a good example ... but ... if i register .. windowsaudio.org and is
a consortium of Steinberg and C-Labs for example ... sure Bill Gates don't
will be happy with that .... well .... in my opinion .. linux is from all the
people who mades something for linux, projects documentation ... etc, then i
can understand som people dont be happy.

For me is the same, i don't worry about, but a non-profit organization who
takes profit of their name .... creates flames :-)

Anyway this world if for the smart people ... or that i heard sometines.



Josep

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Steve Harris

Post by holborn
the future will be useful for all the linux users, with that name probaly
many people go to this domain serching audio solutions, and hope they will
find and don't lost their time. And that is a big effort for any kind of
project.

Hmmm... lots of domain names look special when you see them in isolation,
linux-?music.(com|org|net)
linux-?sound.(com|org|net)
linux-?audio.(com|org|net)
music-?linux.(com|org|net)
...
l-a-[du].(com|org|net)
gnulinux-*.(com|org|net)
free-?software-*.(com|org|net)
...
this is one of hundreds of relevant sounding domain names, the chances of
someone picking it by change if they want to fond information are very
slim, they are far more likely to google.

But the problem is bigger than it might seem. Try to google for 'linux
music' 'linux audio' 'linux sound'. You'll get different results. You
want find lad when searching for 'linux music'. You'll find
hidsquad.com.

The importance of a domain name is that it's relatively easy to guess.
And most of all, it's easy to remember.

Marek

[Brad Arant]

Please shine the light as bright as you can. The color of Microsoft's self
illumination is getting tiresome. Any new lights are most welcome,
especially in the area of Linux. Keep up the good work.

And, oh yah, I am not one of the ~70 but I do listen and read the
conversations to try and keep a tempo (no pun) on the group.

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-dev-***@music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-dev-***@music.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Dave
Phillips
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:47 AM
To: LAU Mail; LAD Mail
Subject: [linux-audio-dev] [OT?] Fun with numbers

Greetings:

I thought about posting a response to the linuxaudio.org controversy but
I've opted for posting some numbers instead.

It was pointed out that LAD can claim more than 700 members now.
Very cool, I love it. I'm not sure exactly what those numbers mean, but I do
know that only about 1/10 of that figure actually post regularly to the
list. So out of the 700 only ~70 are consistent contributors. Again, I don't
know what the numbers signify. I guess it's [your meaning here].

On January 7 Linux Journal On-line posted my second monthly column (this
one about Planet CCRMA and AGNULA). I checked for the number of reads this
morning: +10000. That's right, more than ten thousand in little over one
week. I point this out not to shine my own light, but to indicate again that
far more people are interested in Linux audio development than the mail
lists' membership numbers suggest.

(Actually I have a lot of thoughts on all this stuff, but I'm really
just too busy here for further comment.)

Back to the hack...

Best regards,

Dave Phillips

[iriXx]

Post by Marek Peteraj
It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
comments?
Marek

yes.
there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be on the
stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development forum.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD and
(in no particular order)
*Ardour *ALSA *Jack *JAMin *LADSPA+swh-plugins *LinuxSampler
*Lilypond etc
Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc

i believe Daniel is planning the event....


m~
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

--Benjamin Franklin


|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL


.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
comments?
Marek

yes.
there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be on the
stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development forum.

such as?

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD and
(in no particular order)
*Ardour *ALSA *Jack *JAMin *LADSPA+swh-plugins *LinuxSampler
*Lilypond etc
Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc

i believe Daniel is planning the event....

So then let him speak for himself.

Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
comments?
Marek

yes.
there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be on the
stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development forum.

such as?

myself.

Cool. Are you a visitor? Are you a sponsor? Are you leading a oss linux
audio project? are you contributing to such projects?

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD and
(in no particular order)
*Ardour *ALSA *Jack *JAMin *LADSPA+swh-plugins *LinuxSampler
*Lilypond etc
Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc

i believe Daniel is planning the event....

So then let him speak for himself.

why are you replying offlist?

I'm not. I accidentally hit 'reply to all' - that's why you got a cc.


Marek

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
comments?
Marek

yes.
there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be on the
stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development forum.

such as?

myself.

Cool. Are you a visitor? Are you a sponsor? Are you leading a oss linux
audio project? are you contributing to such projects?

i'm a performer, composer, singer,

That means that you're a Linux Audio User.

and a leading lobbyist for Free
Software

Isn't Richard Stallman a leading lobbyist?

and for the use of Free licensing in music. i'm also part of
iCommons - the project to port Creative Commons to compatibility with EU
law. check out www.copyleftmedia.org.uk.

The term 'copyleft' definitely isn't compatible with EU law, whether
it's copyright law or any other part of intellectual property law.

i'll be there demonstrating
live vocal improvisation with plugins, and portable setups for live
improvisation, working alongside Steve and Daniel.

That means you and Daniel are going to help out the Linux Audio
Developers on that stand.

How is Sounds Expo different from ZKM or LinuxTag? *What* *exactly* are
we trying to promote? Shouldn't we all promote and protect the things we
value the most - oss linux audio projects? Are private mailing lists and
sudden consortiums the way it's done?

Marek

[Daniel James]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx
there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be
on the stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development
forum.

such as?

Users and musicians. I'm no developer - never claimed to be.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD
(in no particular order)
*Ardour *ALSA *Jack *JAMin *LADSPA+swh-plugins *LinuxSampler
*Lilypond etc
Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc

That is what we will be promoting - there's no disagreement here.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx
i believe Daniel is planning the event....

So then let him speak for himself.

I've been in the studio for a few days, as it happens - I appreciate
that iriXx stepped in to answer that, as she's been involved in
planning for the event too.

It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio
community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade
show, on the basis that we will be offering free advice and
information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to
give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

Cheers

Daniel

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx
there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be
on the stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development
forum.

such as?

Users and musicians. I'm no developer - never claimed to be.

...

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by iriXx

Post by Marek Peteraj
I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD
(in no particular order)
*Ardour *ALSA *Jack *JAMin *LADSPA+swh-plugins *LinuxSampler
*Lilypond etc
Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc

That is what we will be promoting - there's no disagreement here.

...snip...

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio
community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade
show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux
audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

Post by Daniel James
on the basis that we will be offering free advice and
information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to
give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying
to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux
Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And
it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event.

The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves
the directors of LAD.

I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing into a
larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an event that
will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users this
year. A place where the developers, journalists and music industry can
meet each other.
I think such an event is much more important than any stand.

Don't get me wrong. I apreciate that you're organising an event. But
it's an event just like the other events. In no way is it more important
than the others. http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/events.php3

I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium, whether
virtual or not, until a broader consensus has been reached.
That includes the election of its members.

Regarding the consortium list.
The old thread is gone. Was there anything you should hide? I believe
that another private mailing list with the old thread still exists.


Marek

[Daniel James]

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux
audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry
trade show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole
Linux audio community.

No - a consortium can only represent its members.

Post by Marek Peteraj
The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

By which you mean members of a mailing list, or the actual developers
doing the work? This may come as a surprise to you, but many libre
software developers admit that they need help to promote their
software - either because they don't have the time, experience of
working with the media or public speaking skills.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
The organisers have agreed
to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM?

If you read up on the event you'll see it is specifically about audio
and music technology, which LinuxTag is not. Running this kind of
stand at a Linux event would be 'preaching to the converted'. As for
ZKM, that is a developer event, not really an event for users who
don't even know what Linux is yet.

Post by Marek Peteraj
The only thing we should promote right now are
the Linux Audio applications.

er... that's what we are doing.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Companies have resources to promote
themselves.

I don't think you appreciate the situation with regard to the small
companies that are funding free software development, while trying to
make a living for developers at the same time. They are not rich.
Even combined, their resources are tiny compared to the proprietary
software companies.

Post by Marek Peteraj
And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at
such event.

What have you got against users? Is it because I'm a user rather than
a developer?

Post by Marek Peteraj
The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications.

Agreed - but only events in Germany as far as I know. There are other
countries too.

Post by Marek Peteraj
They never called
themselves the directors of LAD.

Perhaps that's because a mailing list is not an organisation. If they
had set up an organisation and called themselves directors of it, I
don't think anyone would have complained.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing
into a larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an
event that will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux
Audio Users this year. A place where the developers, journalists
and music industry can meet each other.

As long as they a) know the event exists and b) are sufficiently
interested to travel to Germany for it.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I think such an event is much more important than any stand.

Yes - but we're aiming our effort at a very different audience.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Don't get me wrong. I apreciate that you're organising an event.

Thanks for the appreciation!

Post by Marek Peteraj
But it's an event just like the other events. In no way is it more
important than the others.

I never said it was.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium

Already done.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Regarding the consortium list.
The old thread is gone. Was there anything you should hide?

No. It was only a temporary list.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I
believe that another private mailing list with the old thread still
exists.

You sound paranoid.

Cheers

Daniel

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux
audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry
trade show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole
Linux audio community.

No - a consortium can only represent its members.

"Linux audio community gets representation..."

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

By which you mean members of a mailing list, or the actual developers
doing the work? This may come as a surprise to you, but many libre
software developers admit that they need help to promote their
software - either because they don't have the time, experience of
working with the media or public speaking skills.

Then let's focus on software and its developers.

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
The organisers have agreed
to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM?

If you read up on the event you'll see it is specifically about audio
and music technology, which LinuxTag is not. Running this kind of
stand at a Linux event would be 'preaching to the converted'. As for
ZKM, that is a developer event, not really an event for users who
don't even know what Linux is yet.

Post by Marek Peteraj
The only thing we should promote right now are
the Linux Audio applications.

er... that's what we are doing.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Companies have resources to promote
themselves.

I don't think you appreciate the situation with regard to the small
companies that are funding free software development, while trying to
make a living for developers at the same time. They are not rich.
Even combined, their resources are tiny compared to the proprietary
software companies.

Post by Marek Peteraj
And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at
such event.

What have you got against users? Is it because I'm a user rather than
a developer?

Post by Marek Peteraj
The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications.

Agreed - but only events in Germany as far as I know. There are other
countries too.

http://www.metadecks.org/events/lca2004/

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
They never called
themselves the directors of LAD.

Perhaps that's because a mailing list is not an organisation. If they
had set up an organisation and called themselves directors of it, I
don't think anyone would have complained.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing
into a larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an
event that will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux
Audio Users this year. A place where the developers, journalists
and music industry can meet each other.

As long as they a) know the event exists and b) are sufficiently
interested to travel to Germany for it.

http://www.metadecks.org/events/lca2004/

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
I think such an event is much more important than any stand.

Yes - but we're aiming our effort at a very different audience.

Could you explain?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium

Already done.

Already done witholding?

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
Regarding the consortium list.
The old thread is gone. Was there anything you should hide?

No. It was only a temporary list.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I
believe that another private mailing list with the old thread still
exists.

You sound paranoid.

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p

Marek

[Dave Robillard]

Post by Daniel James

Post by Daniel James
You sound paranoid.

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
Marek

I would really rather not fuel this thread (personally I think both
sides are being incredibly stupid) but this is the one thing that
bothers me.

Why is this list closed? Memership "will be held for approval", and the
archive isn't available for browsing.. what gives?

Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source community'..

-Dave

[Daniel James]

Post by Dave Robillard
Why is this list closed?

It was just set up temporarily because my cc: list was getting rather
long. We've got a proper list now.

Post by Dave Robillard
the archive isn't available for browsing

It is now: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/consortium-p/

Honestly, I didn't think anyone else would be interested.

Post by Dave Robillard
Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source
community'..

No-one on this list ever sent a private email?

Cheers

Daniel

[Daniel James]

Hello Marek,

Post by Marek Peteraj
"Linux audio community gets representation..."

I'm not sure where you're quoting from - I can't see that phrase in
the announcement press release for the consortium or the About page
of the website.

Post by Marek Peteraj
Then let's focus on software and its developers.

You can focus on developers if you like, but as a humble user I'd like
to be involved too.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
Agreed - but only events in Germany as far as I know. There are
other countries too.

http://www.metadecks.org/events/lca2004/

Okay, Germany plus one mini-conference in Australia. That leaves about
190 other countries.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
Yes - but we're aiming our effort at a very different audience.

Could you explain?

People who need to use this kind of software on a daily basis but have
low awareness of Linux and/or libre software. By contrast, if you
have an audio stand at a general Linux event you will find high
awareness of libre software but only a small minority of specialist
audio users. (Those Linux events are still worth doing, in my
opinion, but they don't reach many new people).

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium

Already done.

Already done witholding?

Not witholding at all - that was your idea.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James

Post by Marek Peteraj
I
believe that another private mailing list with the old thread
still exists.

You sound paranoid.

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p

That's not another private list, it's the original list. There are no
other private lists. And just for you, I've changed the archives from
private to public:

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/consortium-p/

I'll warn you though, it might not be very interesting reading.

Cheers

Daniel

[Joern Nettingsmeier]

this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you
have had enough of this thread already...

but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio
community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade
show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux
audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

marek, please: it's time to shut up.

i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio
community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as
to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community.
matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing
the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux
audio community.
none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed
everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus.

SO WHAT?????

there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what
people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i.
this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times,
and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone
interested in linux audio uses it.

nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what
the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not
going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others.

linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software
communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together
to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial
developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if
it fails, so what?
nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl -
chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of
the community away. where is the problem?

there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is
organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be
discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing
peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe
will be for the good of linux audio.
be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's
going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then
it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it
really endanger or take away anything that the community already has?


the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect
that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list.


if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of
the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and
die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your
fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts?


excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and*
money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to
continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i
certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in
return for my efforts.

in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and
a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to
criticism.

this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar
about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above
all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not
suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is
being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
on the basis that we will be offering free advice and
information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to
give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying
to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux
Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And
it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event.
The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves
the directors of LAD.

nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a
ball rolling. just as matthias and frank "usurped" the role of
conference organizers. *to*get*something*done* !

if you consider some of his actions bad style, then fine, but show some
style yourself when offering criticism.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing into a
larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an event that
will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users this
year. A place where the developers, journalists and music industry can
meet each other.
I think such an event is much more important than any stand.

both stands *and* meetings are nice and have become and important part
of the community. what's your point?

Post by Marek Peteraj
Don't get me wrong. I apreciate that you're organising an event. But
it's an event just like the other events. In no way is it more important
than the others. http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/events.php3

excuse me, but it takes a lot of goodwill to read "appreciation" into
any of your postings lately.


scratching my head,

jörn


(btw, just to make it clear: while i happen to be the list admin atm,
this is my *personal* opinion, and it does not in anyway reflect list
policy or some hazy "community pov". i have always tried to keep the two
well separated, and i intend to continue doing so.)
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com


Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)

[Paul Winkler]

What Joern said.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:45:20PM +0100, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
(snip)

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you
have had enough of this thread already...
but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio
community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade
show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux
audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

marek, please: it's time to shut up.
i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio
community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as
to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community.
matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing
the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux
audio community.
none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed
everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus.
SO WHAT?????
there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what
people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i.
this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times,
and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone
interested in linux audio uses it.
nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what
the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not
going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others.
linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software
communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together
to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial
developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if
it fails, so what?
nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl -
chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of
the community away. where is the problem?
there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is
organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be
discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing
peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe
will be for the good of linux audio.
be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's
going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then
it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it
really endanger or take away anything that the community already has?
the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect
that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list.
if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of
the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and
die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your
fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts?
excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and*
money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to
continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i
certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in
return for my efforts.
in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and
a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to
criticism.
this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar
about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above
all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not
suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is
being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
on the basis that we will be offering free advice and
information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to
give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying
to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux
Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And
it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event.
The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves
the directors of LAD.

nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a
ball rolling.

?

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
just as matthias and frank "usurped" the role of
conference organizers. *to*get*something*done* !

Dear Joern, thanks for not replying to 3 of my emails i have sent during
July, August and September.

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
if you consider some of his actions bad style, then fine, but show some
style yourself when offering criticism.

I have never used uppercase just as you do, i have never called the lad
members a stupid tribunal just as you did in this mail though you're the
admin of this list, and i have never used the ironic term 'err...' just
as Daniel did several times.


Marek

[Stonekeeper]

I'm only a lurker, but I concur with Joern.

-Lea.

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you
have had enough of this thread already...
but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio
community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade
show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux
audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

marek, please: it's time to shut up.
i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio
community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as
to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community.
matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing
the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux
audio community.
none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed
everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus.
SO WHAT?????
there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what
people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i.
this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times,
and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone
interested in linux audio uses it.
nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what
the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not
going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others.
linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software
communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together
to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial
developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if
it fails, so what?
nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl -
chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of
the community away. where is the problem?
there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is
organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be
discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing
peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe
will be for the good of linux audio.
be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's
going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then
it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it
really endanger or take away anything that the community already has?
the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect
that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list.
if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of
the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and
die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your
fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts?
excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and*
money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to
continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i
certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in
return for my efforts.
in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and
a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to
criticism.
this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar
about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above
all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not
suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is
being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
on the basis that we will be offering free advice and
information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to
give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying
to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux
Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And
it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event.
The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves
the directors of LAD.

nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a
ball rolling. just as matthias and frank "usurped" the role of
conference organizers. *to*get*something*done* !
if you consider some of his actions bad style, then fine, but show some
style yourself when offering criticism.

Post by Marek Peteraj
I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing into a
larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an event that
will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users this
year. A place where the developers, journalists and music industry can
meet each other.
I think such an event is much more important than any stand.

both stands *and* meetings are nice and have become and important part
of the community. what's your point?

Post by Marek Peteraj
Don't get me wrong. I apreciate that you're organising an event. But
it's an event just like the other events. In no way is it more important
than the others. http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/events.php3

excuse me, but it takes a lot of goodwill to read "appreciation" into
any of your postings lately.
scratching my head,
jörn
(btw, just to make it clear: while i happen to be the list admin atm,
this is my *personal* opinion, and it does not in anyway reflect list
policy or some hazy "community pov". i have always tried to keep the two
well separated, and i intend to continue doing so.)

[Marek Peteraj]

Post by Joern Nettingsmeier
this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you
have had enough of this thread already...
but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio
community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade
show,

Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux
audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

marek, please: it's time to shut up.
i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio
community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as
to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community.
matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing
the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux
audio community.
none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed
everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus.
SO WHAT?????
there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what
people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i.
this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times,
and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone
interested in linux audio uses it.
nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what
the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not
going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others.
linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software
communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together
to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial
developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if
it fails, so what?
nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl -
chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of
the community away. where is the problem?
there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is
organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be
discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing
peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe
will be for the good of linux audio.
be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's
going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then
it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it
really endanger or take away anything that the community already has?
the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect
that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list.
if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of
the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and
die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your
fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts?
excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and*
money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to
continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i
certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in
return for my efforts.
in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and
a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to
criticism.
this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar
about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above
all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not
suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is
being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all.

Post by Marek Peteraj

Post by Daniel James
on the basis that we will be offering free advice and
information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to
give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do.

So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying
to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux
Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And
it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event.
The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job
organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote
their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves
the directors of LAD.

nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a
ball rolling. just as matthias and frank "usurped" the role of
conference organizers.

A conference organiser is something different than a selfelected
director. Sorry for not mentioning Conrad for organising LAD conf in
Australia. He deserves respect aswell.

Marek

[Kai Vehmanen]

Post by Doug Wellington

Post by David Olofson
The big difference is that when the job is done, the result is
*really* yours to keep. You won't find yourself forced to move to a
new environment a few years later, just because someone decides it's

Heehee... I know plenty of people still using "old" environments and
technology! Atari? Amiga? Moog? Sequential? Fender? Vox? How

[...]

Post by Doug Wellington
old thing...? Heck, no technology is immune to the "obsolesence due
to latest and greatest" syndrome. Look at my Waldorf Microwave XT...

But with software it's not 100% the same situation.

I've succesfully run my mixing sessions (requiring Ecasound plus various
LADSPA plugins) from machines ranging a Compaq iPaq (PDA, the old H3600
model) and a 486SX/25Mhz desktop, to the latest and greatest P4/Athlon
machines.

I'm pretty confident that I will be able to run the audio sw setup I'm
using now on modern hw in the future, too. All it takes is to someone to
port Linux to the new hw, and keep the apps I use up-to-date. Both are
tasks that I can (in the worst-case) do myself, or pay someone to do.

Now as for the stuff I've recorded with Win95/98 audio apps, to access
them from a modern PC, I need to buy new license for W2000/XP, and
licenses for the W2000/XP compatible versions of the audio software I've
used. And if the companies go out of business, I might have to resort to
reverse-engineering their session-formats to get access to my old
recordings. This can be significantly more difficult (and costly if I pay
someone else to do it) than keeping my Linux audio setup running.

--
http://www.eca.cx
Audio software for Linux!

[David Olofson]

On Wednesday 21 January 2004 00.30, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
[...]

Post by Kai Vehmanen
I'm pretty confident that I will be able to run the audio sw setup
I'm using now on modern hw in the future, too. All it takes is to
someone to port Linux to the new hw, and keep the apps I use
up-to-date. Both are tasks that I can (in the worst-case) do
myself, or pay someone to do.

Exactly.

Meanwhile, some of the Borland-only stuff that old DOS software uses,
I'd have to reimplement from scratch to port, as there's no source
available. :-/ I actually tried to port it to DJGPP, but gave up,
since it wasn't worth the effort.

(There are other reasons to rewrite that software, so the motivation
to port it weren't *that* strong. That might change soon though, as
the old h/w design can no longer be built due to out-of-production
silicon without sufficiently compatible replacements, and the new s/w
is not yet ready for use...)

Post by Kai Vehmanen
Now as for the stuff I've recorded with Win95/98 audio apps, to
access them from a modern PC, I need to buy new license for
W2000/XP, and licenses for the W2000/XP compatible versions of the
audio software I've used. And if the companies go out of business,
I might have to resort to reverse-engineering their session-formats
to get access to my old recordings. This can be significantly more
difficult (and costly if I pay someone else to do it) than keeping
my Linux audio setup running.

Yes... That's the kind of stuff that makes me nervous when using
closed source tools for anything. What will happen with my files down
the road?


//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.- Audiality -----------------------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. |
| MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---

[iriXx]

Post by Marek Peteraj
Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux
audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true
representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio
Developers.

ehh??
where's the logic in that??

as a composer, i say: what good is my writing music without an audience
to hear it?

what good is it writing applications, if there is noone to use them?

what good is a body, if every part of it wanted to be a hand, or a foot?
it would not function without eyes, nose, ears...

you speak as if the Linux Audio Developers are some kind of gods... but
none of us would exist in this community without each other. thats what
c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y means.

m~
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

--Benjamin Franklin


|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL


.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

[Taybin Rutkin]

Has anyone actually been denied membership to the mailing list yet? I'm sure the creator of the list had some reasons for that choice.

Taybin

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Robillard <***@connect.carleton.ca>
Sent: Jan 21, 2004 12:06 PM
To:
The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List <linux-audio-***@music.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org

Post by Daniel James

Post by Daniel James
You sound paranoid.

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
Marek

I would really rather not fuel this thread (personally I think both
sides are being incredibly stupid) but this is the one thing that
bothers me.

Why is this list closed? Memership "will be held for approval", and the
archive isn't available for browsing.. what gives?

Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source community'..

-Dave