LinuxMusicians

Unicornblender wrote:I still don't quite get why the company working on it and also who is funding the project want to be completely anon. I think we can all agree that it does sound good, has a huge potential and will be very very much appreciated in the linux community if they changed their strategy a bit and opened up a bit on info.

I don't think they will disclose anything before the product gets out of beta state. This is quite normal for closed source projects. Also, the main reason they don't give any info about the company itself is that they use real brand names, like Bogner, Marshall etc, and obviously don't want to get sued.

Anyone using it with Debian 9?

The Project has became paid (39.95). As the Tonelib-Jam (49.95).

Does anyone have previous version 3.9.9?

I can have a look, I should have an older version.

I have the tonelib GFX.

I could really use that older .deb file, the last version I have is 3.9.0, for some reason I deleted 3.9.4 and I'm really annoyed that the crippleware update came with no warning.

Again, seeking the TonelibGFX 3.9.4 .deb package.

Kott wrote:The Project has became paid (39.95). As the Tonelib-Jam (49.95).

Does anyone have previous version 3.9.9?

Well that's a kick in the nuts.

Just to clarify, running an older version and stopping it from updating should work?

christobal wrote:Just to clarify, running an older version and stopping it from updating should work?

Why it shouldn't? Also, how can a piece of software installed via package manager (thus requiring root access to make any changes) update itself running from an unprivileged account?

christobal wrote:Well that's a kick in the nuts.

A kick in the nuts is when you state that people should always code for free. Any coder can kill you for such statements, and I won't judge them for such a righteous action.

AlexTheBassist wrote:

christobal wrote:Well that's a kick in the nuts.

A kick in the nuts is when you state that people should always code for free. Any coder can kill you for such statements, and I won't judge them for such a righteous action.

Fair point indeed.

If somebody is still interested in ToneLib software, its state, and what's happening behind the curtains, go here for any clarifications. I find their sales/updates policy really generous compared to most of other vendors on the market.

I am going to buy it, it is a very useful interface and I like the sound I get out of it. I'm just annoyed with the way they went about asking to be paid. If they'd asked rather than tricking people into downloading and installing crippleware, I wouldn't be so annoyed about it. But I am still gonna buy it.

On the upside, the devs sent me a 25% discount code so its only $30 before October 31.

Natelok wrote:If they'd asked rather than tricking people into downloading and installing crippleware, I wouldn't be so annoyed about it

Did you read the statement I linked in my previous comment? It clearly says that the demo is fully functional, not crippled in any way. Check your facts before posting:

First, let us emphasize one more time that there won’t be any clips or limitations in the evaluation version of both TL GFX and TL JAM, as we do not believe that technological enforcement of licensing policy is in the best interest of our users.

Will your GFX/JAM app be completely blocked by the end of 30 days or will it lose some of its features? No, it won’t, because we would never do such thing to our users.

Holy shit, I'd better copy the whole public letter if you guys can't follow the links.

None of that stuff was posted on their website at the time I made my comments.