Making it mainstream.

Discuss how to promote using FLOSS to make music.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

Post Reply
ghostwalk71
Established Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Making it mainstream.

Post by ghostwalk71 »

A few days ago, I went to a local music store in Joplin MO to show the manager my heavily customized version of Ubuntu, which was loaded to the gills with studio apps. The reason I did this was to set up an in-store event around open source software for recording environments.

To some extent I'd like to say he was impressed. Particularly when I showed him that both Ableton Live and FL9 ran flawlessly under WINE. But much like the rest of the world, the industry continues to be fixated on 'standards' like Cubase, Pro-Tools and Cakewalk.

To combat this mindset there are three possible tactics.

1. The Customer Loyalty Card:
"Do you all remember the retailer from where you bought your first four track tape recorder? You probably kept going back to him for years, even after upgrading your rig time and time again. By showing the customer a cheap and effective way to get into digital audio, they are more likely to purchase the big ticket items such as the Mac/Pro-Tools package from your store."

This is a particularly sneaky method of going about it. If the user likes the cut of your jib, they'll never make the migration to the Mac/Pro-Tools package, but will continue to go to the retailer and buy other things, like Gorilla cables and other accessories.

2. Show off the toys whether they're Floss or Not
What a lot of advocates don't realize is that an alternative to a proprietary software package is not enough. That alternative has to play nicely with the musicians existing stack. There are numerous ways to do this, from showing how well FL9 works under WINE, to using proprietary VST plugins in lmms, Ardour or Rosegarden via dssi-vst.

3. Its all about the benjamins
This is where the rubber meets the road. Offer to work with the retailer to bring people into the store for this sort of event. Remember, the more people you bring in the store, whether it's to showcase open source software or not, the more sales opportunities that retailer will have. Someone may come into the store to see your presentation, but may leave purchasing a set of Ernie Ball Strings, or a Shure Microphone.

This will entail getting in touch with people who run music programs for your local school, church or community center. Soft skills are needed for this tactic.

Now, here's my point: At this time, Linux distributions are at a place where they approach the Mac's functionality in creative applications. But it's been the case for almost twenty years, that the open source community does not market themselves very well. We need to move past the geekosphere of blogs and forums if mainstream and multimedia distros are to reach their intended audience.
User avatar
Capoeira
Established Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Brazil
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Capoeira »

I don't know.....i have my doubts if linux ever will be mainstream.
I wouldn't recomend Linux to my mom for example.
You have to be interested in how an OS works to use Linux, the mainstream only is interested in the apps.

it could indeed be some kind of "mod" that has potential to become mainstream, like the google-os.
The growing of Android on celphones is an indicator.
Think google will become "the new microsoft" soon
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Louigi Verona »

Why do you want to make it mainstream? Especially by basically using Windows and Mac OS applications on it? Wouldn't it be just easier to use FL9 or Ableton Live on Windows? It is less impressive but more practical.

Also, when it comes to technical terms, I very much doubt the superiority of Linux audio apps over Windows or MacOS audio apps library. Seriously - what exactly do you think is so great about Linux Audio?

Let me give you a perspective of a common computer musician.

So, what exactly do you think is so great about Linux Audio?
Modularity? I must tell you that for the most time people just connect synths to a midi sequencer, basically recreating standard functionality of any Windows sequencer, only with the additional need to run Patchage and JACK Ctl and have to tediously connect it each time or configure a session handler and all that other good stuff. All of that just to play a couple of synths and run them through a rack of effects. Sounds mainstream? Not to me.

Further, the plugin library is basic, very few good reverbs, one normal delay plugin, not a bad one in Rakarrack, although try explaining to the mainstream public that in order to create own presets you have to edit a text file first. I am not even mentioning other, more fancy effects - there is simply nothing special to mention, compared to a rich library of VST effects, many of which are of excellent quality.

Instrument plugins are also very basic and very few on Linux. LV2 format has not yet kicked in, LADSPA instruments have difficult to use interfaces, no fancy LV2 or LADSPA synths come to mind.

Sequencers themselves are also not perfect. A lot of apps still in development, with a lot of small annoying things, like not being able to render whole project into wav and other things - in fact, quite a lot of them, some very basic functionality which takes a click in Windows, takes ages on Linux.

So there you go. Where is any mainstream in that?

Also, methods you suggest for "making it mainstream" are questionable.
I don't think simply advertising Linux Audio is help. If you give a musician a program that is difficult to work with and/or does not allow him to do what he wants, even if you shove it down his throat, he's gonna spit it out anyway.

The only solution is to develop a program that is usable, extremely well tested, suited not only for a certain type of music, but for anything you want, with a set of standard functionality one-two clicks away.

Additionally, a whole developer community should exist, people who would develop lots of LADSPA and LV2 plugins. For that easy to use plugin designers should be created, not necessarily for complete newbies, but at least provide interface stuff and compilation, so that the developer would just have to care about audio algorithms.

Provided all of the above, then it makes sense to advertise something, although a lot of people would then get interested in Linux Audio by word of mouth anyway.

So in my humble opinion, Linux Audio mainstream future, if it does exist at all, is extremely far away.
etienne
Established Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:19 am
Location: Hermanus, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by etienne »

But what if someone/a company were to distribute pre-set-up OS's like DreamStudio, KXStudio or 64Studio and then offer something like a "Set-up" fee for your studio, where they set up the software, along with all the right drivers and configurations for their needs? It would be cheaper than, say, Windows7 with Cubase...
Etienne Snyman
-Composer-
http://octavepress.com
transmogrifox
Established Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:34 pm

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by transmogrifox »

I think I have to agree with Louigi on this one. I don't have a vision for any free operating system to go mainstream. There would be some perks to us who use Linux audio if it did: Likely what would happen is one OS would be the flagship bloated public-friendly standard distribution, then everybody else could benefit by the new FOSS code that would be distributed with it. If what you're looking for is another platform that supports proprietary closed-source apps that you pay for, then what have you gained that isn't offered by Mac OS? Macs have a great operating system under the hood.

Unfortunately I think mainstream popularity would bring a lot of its own problems . GNU/Linux is a great tool, and I use it every day. I don't even use Windows at home anymore because all my own needs are met by what is available currently. For me that is enough. I am not compelled to invest my time & resources in a marketing crusade (although I certainly tell people who may have interest).

I do believe there is technical merit to the Linux based audio production. For me as an engineer/programmer it offers great flexibility, but for somebody doesn't even know what "LFO" means, it's a curse.
User avatar
Capoeira
Established Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Brazil
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Capoeira »

make one test: count all women on the internet linux-forums. Never seen any. Linux is for tecnicly interested persons
ghostwalk71
Established Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by ghostwalk71 »

Allow me to address Louigi's concerns:

"Why do you want to make it mainstream? Especially by basically using Windows and Mac OS applications on it? Wouldn't it be just easier to use FL9 or Ableton Live on Windows? It is less impressive but more practical.

Also, when it comes to technical terms, I very much doubt the superiority of Linux audio apps over Windows or MacOS audio apps library. Seriously - what exactly do you think is so great about Linux Audio?"


Historically, Windows was never intended to be a platform for the recording musician. The DOS-based kernel and Fat 32 filesystem was ill suited for that sort of task and it wasn't until the release of Rewire and ASIO that 98se was able to approach some level of usability. Twelve years and four iterations of Windows later, Microsoft is still considered second rate by most musicians I've spoken with.

The iMac's main selling point was it's unix-like kernel and superior file system (two things are also considered main features in Linux distros). So essentially, we're looking at two Windows apps, running at Mac-like performance, at a fraction of the price.

"Modularity? I must tell you that for the most time people just connect synths to a midi sequencer, basically recreating standard functionality of any Windows sequencer, only with the additional need to run Patchage and JACK Ctl and have to tediously connect it each time or configure a session handler and all that other good stuff. All of that just to play a couple of synths and run them through a rack of effects. Sounds mainstream? Not to me."

There are ways to save a jack session using a standard gui, and personally I've never needed to use patchage when connecting synths to a sequencer or effects rack. You might want to have a look at the newest versions of jackctl, rosegarden and Qtractor. As for the level of monotony, I can honestly say that it takes no more effort for me to get sound out of a linux box, than it does running ASIO-4-All under Windows to connect my keyboard to Reaper, Fruity Loops or Ableton Live.

"Further, the plugin library is basic, very few good reverbs, one normal delay plugin, not a bad one in Rakarrack, although try explaining to the mainstream public that in order to create own presets you have to edit a text file first. I am not even mentioning other, more fancy effects - there is simply nothing special to mention, compared to a rich library of VST effects, many of which are of excellent quality."[\b]

About 90% of the Windows based VST plugins I've used run seamlessly under WINE 1.2.

"Instrument plugins are also very basic and very few on Linux. LV2 format has not yet kicked in, LADSPA instruments have difficult to use interfaces, no fancy LV2 or LADSPA synths come to mind."

Here, we do agree. The need for mind share is indeed needed to make it a financially competitive platform, but without exposure how do you propose to bring in developers in to begin with?

"I don't think simply advertising Linux Audio is help. If you give a musician a program that is difficult to work with and/or does not allow him to do what he wants, even if you shove it down his throat, he's gonna spit it out anyway."

You're right. Shoving an application down someone's throat is not a proven method for adoption. Showing people software that can yield effective results, informing them that many of these applications are free of charged, and making yourself available to help new users is.

"Additionally, a whole developer community should exist, people who would develop lots of LADSPA and LV2 plugins. For that easy to use plugin designers should be created, not necessarily for complete newbies, but at least provide interface stuff and compilation, so that the developer would just have to care about audio algorithms."

Here, I am in full agreement. How are you with algorithms?

"Provided all of the above, then it makes sense to advertise something, although a lot of people would then get interested in Linux Audio by word of mouth anyway."

So far, word of mouth has only yielded us an environment of geeks impressing other geeks on distrowatch. In order for Linux to be seen as a viable creative platform, a dialogue has to be opened between the technical and its intended user base. But in order to determine where the community is raising the bar, and where it's failing abysmally, we need to put ourselves out there.

I do thank Louigi for bringing up his concerns as he does indeed raise some very valid points. But before you dismiss what I'm saying out of hand, assume for one moment that you were on the other side of this discussion, how would you drive adoption?
ghostwalk71
Established Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by ghostwalk71 »

etienne wrote:But what if someone/a company were to distribute pre-set-up OS's like DreamStudio, KXStudio or 64Studio and then offer something like a "Set-up" fee for your studio, where they set up the software, along with all the right drivers and configurations for their needs? It would be cheaper than, say, Windows7 with Cubase...
This is exactly the response I was hoping to see :) If you were to look at Indamixx products, you'd see that it's already being done, but not at a particularly attractive mark up. Someone who offers set up, and long term support of Linux based recording studios, can, with the right marketing and connections do very well for themselves. The set up doesn't have to be 100% floss either. For example, WINE support could be slated as a sort of "value added service". whereas a strictly libre studio would be substantially cheaper.

Alternately, you could pad the cost a little bit to donate to various open source projects. After all, developers who make money, will tell other developers and so on...
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Louigi Verona »

The iMac's main selling point was it's unix-like kernel and superior file system (two things are also considered main features in Linux distros). So essentially, we're looking at two Windows apps, running at Mac-like performance, at a fraction of the price.

I agree, Windows is best for office jobs, always was. Although I must point out that in my particular case no matter how I patch Linux with real-time kernels and all that other great stuff like priorities of audio threads and such, my linux box performance is way below what I could do on Windows. If I use 5 soundfont players in Qtractor, it already starts to loose so much frames, it is difficult to work. Never had any such problems in Windows, in fact, LMMS performs much better too. It might be a cost of modularity, but I am no programmer so I do not know if it is true. I've actually written about it at great length here: http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projec ... nux_modexp

There are ways to save a jack session using a standard gui, and personally I've never needed to use patchage when connecting synths to a sequencer or effects rack. You might want to have a look at the newest versions of jackctl, rosegarden and Qtractor. As for the level of monotony, I can honestly say that it takes no more effort for me to get sound out of a linux box, than it does running ASIO-4-All under Windows to connect my keyboard to Reaper, Fruity Loops or Ableton Live.

I follow latest versions of software you name. Using patchage or qctl seems like a personal preference to me. I personally find QJackCtl interface very confusing and am amazed at people who can actually look at all those inter-crossing lines and not get confused.
As for getting sound out, for me it takes much more time than on Windows.
First, I have two soundcards which change device order with each reboot. So before starting JACK, I have to go into its properties and choose the correct device - no such problems on Windows, ASIO panel just remembers name of device - I've never ever had it not be able to remember what device I am using.
Second, I now have to connect things or load a project and hope it actually does. Sometimes it won't.

Finally, saving a jack session no matter what gui you take has inherently many problems, like a lot of the software which is not supported, etc, you can find lots of articles on that topic on the same page of my site I directed you above. Session handling is moving forward, but very slowly.

Showing people software that can yield effective results, informing them that many of these applications are free of charged, and making yourself available to help new users is.

Actually, depends on what kind of music you are making. The kind of music I do, I find it extremely difficult to yield any effective results. I have had some success with LMMS, but after having made several tracks, I sort of lost interest a bit, because it takes so much time to put these tunes together when on FLStudio it takes me literally minutes to achieve things which take 30-40 minutes using Linux tools.

Again, on my site I have a very important short article explaining two "types" of music: http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projec ... inux_types

Most people using computers and programs like FL Studio and Ableton fall into the "electronic music" category. For such people there is not very much to offer on Linux at the moment - unfortunately. Again, there is some movement forward in light of synths such as Phasex and the development of what I call an integrated music environment (IME) Unison, sort of a second version to LMMS, but it is not there yet.

How are you with algorithms?

I am not a programmer. Not even a Linux geek. Just a person who switched to Linux for philosophical reasons and partially to use it as a platform for ambient music during live performances. At the moment I am also using FL Studio under WINE as no matter how hard I tried, what Linux Audio offers today is not enough of me, though I struggled with it for a solid year of very active research and work within GNU/Linux audio environment.

So far, word of mouth has only yielded us an environment of geeks impressing other geeks on distrowatch. In order for Linux to be seen as a viable creative platform, a dialogue has to be opened between the technical and its intended user base. But in order to determine where the community is raising the bar, and where it's failing abysmally, we need to put ourselves out there.

I do not agree that Linux is an environment of geeks impressing other geeks on distrowatch. It is a very simplistic view. I am not a linux geek, as I said above and in fact, I don't know what it distrowatch, I assume it is some site.
Furthermore, you say - "In order for Linux to be seen as a viable creative platform, a dialogue has to be opened between the technical and its intended user base."
In my opinion, this is a confusing phrase. I don't know how long have you been under Linux, maybe you are a veteran, but what I've learned from being on Linux for some time now is that there is no such solid distinction between technical side and users. Very often technical people are the users of their own software. They write it for themselves and quite often are not extremely interested in satisfying some other abstractly possible user base. They don't care whether their software will be used by 300 people or by 300000, not too much anyway, besides it is difficult to track usage of free software. They do care that software they make works for them and they are satisfied with their own work.

If you want to ask people where Linux Audio is failing, just ask me - I am just a user musician. I am no coder. I can tell you all about it in few words:
1. i need to be able to save complex projects with many synths and for it to be as simple as clicking a "Save" button in FL Studio - at the moment this is not really possible and even LADISH takes quite a lot of configuration and manual typing.
2. I need a bigger selection of meaningful effects, not just a collection of 20 amplifiers which all do the same thing - at the moment I struggle even with basic stuff like good delay and good reverb and good chorus.
3. A bigger (much bigger) selection of synths and synths that actually work and not have each their own set of unique bugs which make recording every part of an arrangement an adventure.
4. I need to be able to render my projects by clicking on one button and for the rendition to be sample-precise, not to render midi and audio separately and then edit it manually in Ardour. I had to revert to FL Studio to work on a soundtrack for a game which needed precisely looped tunes.
5. And finally, I need the system to be able to handle 20 soundfonts normally on my duo core machine, not 5 like now.

There.

Do understand me correctly, I am not bashing Linux, I am just saying that today technically Linux is not superior to Windows or Mac in terms of performance or offerings. Any technical comparison, in my opinion, is too theoretical. "Provided you have a real-time kernel which you have configured perfectly, provided you applied the rtirq patch, provided you have a certain class of supported soundcards, provided you do a certain type of music, provided you have certain technical knowledge - Linux Audio is perfect for you". Too many conditions, don't you think?
The real thing that Linux Audio has - is that it is a technology based on a powerful philosophy of community, sharing and freedom. The rest is fiction, at least in context of mainstream. In fact, even said philosophy is irrelevant for mainstream.

Mainstream offerings of inferior ASIO Windows and Mac are, on the other hand, of extreme high quality, it is an absolutely different level of applications. The performance, GUI, usability, attention to detail, stability are difficult to underestimate. FL Studio, Ableton Live, Cubase, Pro Tools - all those apps are not a joke. With years of everyday development and thorough, in-depth testing, those offerings are very-very difficult to beat. How can you interest a dj or a house producer in Linux, when as a reality today they have Mixxx and Hydrogen and as an alternative they have Traktor Studio and Ableton? You'd say that Hydrogen is free of charge? Pff, come on. This is not a method of "getting mainstream".
If it is free but it cannot do what you need, then why would you want it? And actually lots of people do not mind to invest some money in a stable app. You buy FL Studio and get updates for life - a very fair price for all versions. How can you beat that by offering a free LMMS (which is a very confident project in the world of free software and a major achievement but which is still just a hobby project with loads of limitations)? I have written about LMMS at length, it is a very capable software and I have the deepest respect for people who are working on it at their own expense, using their own free time, but... it really does not compare. And how can it compare when guys behind LMMS have their main jobs and people behind FL Studio work on it every single day, probably even as we speak.

So the bottom line is that any attempt at technical comparison is fatal for Linux Audio when it concerns "mainstream". It does not have "selling points", at least none I can see. And you know why? Because Linux, quite frankly, is not for sale. Linux is not for mainstream.

And when I say that it is not for mainstream, I do not mean that it is a closed thing for geeks - no. I mean that it is not something you advertise like a product. Even when the majority of people use Linux, it still would not be mainstream in a marketing sense. You know what I mean? It is an important point. Linux is simply not something you advertise or sell. You may try, but for most of the time it does not work. You can sell notebooks, but you will have to patch it with the same software we have now.

When Linux Audio does have good software and development tools for audio programmers, then would be the time to "drive adoption". Now? I believe it will not succeed.

All of the above is, of course, just my opinion, based on my current experience.
Pablo
Established Member
Posts: 1274
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:57 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Pablo »

Hi Lougi,

Amazing article. Some of us never used windows to make music so I can't compare. Anyway:
I have two soundcards which change device order with each reboot. So before starting JACK, I have to go into its properties and choose the correct device
Use the name of the card as the interface in the jack setup and forget this prob. cat /proc/asound/cards will tell you, between square brackets you will see the name. Then use the interface hw:Name instead of hw:0 or hw:1.

Cheers! Pablo
User avatar
maghoxfr
Established Member
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:37 pm
Location: Uruguay

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by maghoxfr »

Louigi, amazing post, and I agree 100%. I realized you weren't bashing on linux because you are a very active member of the community, but it's good to be critic towards what you want to improve. Your site is really cool too and the articles are great.

I noticed that under the "browser" categories on your site you didn't include Chromium, I use it and your site is perfect on it.

cheers
Havoc
Established Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:57 pm

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Havoc »

Why do you want to make it mainstream?
I don't. And I don't want to either. As it is now it let me do whatever I want the way I want to do it. faster, cheaper and easier.
Seriously - what exactly do you think is so great about Linux Audio?
Jack. That and only that is enough to keep me using audio on linux. Got something similar to BruteFir in Windows?
Further, the plugin library is basic, very few good reverbs, one normal delay plugin, not a bad one in Rakarrack, although try explaining to the mainstream public that in order to create own presets you have to edit a text file first. I am not even mentioning other, more fancy effects - there is simply nothing special to mention, compared to a rich library of VST effects, many of which are of excellent quality.
So you got free FMH-format to B-format coders? And you can edit the presets in closed apps?
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Louigi Verona »

maghoxfr, thanks for kind words. I do have Chrome listed there, I thought Chromium is just a flavor of Chrome?

Havoc, what are "FMH-format to B-format coders"?

As for "And you can edit the presets in closed apps?" the answer is yes, you can. I've yet to see a plugin which does not allow editing plugins. I think it has to do with the VST wrapper itself which allows that.
Havoc
Established Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:57 pm

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Havoc »

These are used to map the output of multi-microphone arrays (like soundfields) between several formats. I'm not really into that either but just mentioned as something that is easily available in linux but not in commercial OS'es.
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Making it mainstream.

Post by Louigi Verona »

True probably. Not that it is often required.
Post Reply