Linux is More than Ready For Professional Audio. Here is Proof! 1671

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:47:45 -0500, John Swensen

If I went to do a carpentry job, the client wouldn't care less if my hammer was an Estwing or a Stanley. So long as the job holds together and looks as it should, that's enough.

Why is music any different?

Are you expected to deliver data files in a proprietary format, that your client is going to work on after you?

when the turn around is in actual

Now we're getting to the real crux of the matter.

As is often the case, the whole of the question is more complex than technical prowess.

We're talking about accounting wiping out the cost-to-purchase penalty of commercial software, we're talking about after-sales service and training, we're talking about the whole "augmented product" concept, and we're talking about "inter-operability" (which is in theory a strength of open software) with closed, proprietary data formats.

In the end, what defeats free and open software in many cases, is the fact that it is late-to-market. Another vendor has been first-to-market such a long time ago, that he has established a de-facto proprietary standard which effectively closes the market to newcomers.

This leads naturally to either cartels of similarly powerful "compebreastors" in a far-from perfect market, or else a monopoly. Both of which are generally reckoned to be Bad Things, since the very idea of a compebreastive market is thought to stimulate innovation and improvement.

There you have the short-term wound up.

It's hard to see past the end of your nose, when it always up against the grindstone.

You're just in it to make your living (OK, so maybe you love music), but you're definitely not in the music business in order to promote the use of free and open software.

Just like I drive a car to get from A to B, not through some idealistic notion that the automobile represents the freedom of the individual to go wherever he can afford to, at $3-gallon. ;-)

Beef.