Audio Minds - Digital Audio Recording Forum        WDAW.com
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: The next time you put up another DAW  (Read 5870 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Elwood Blues
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1890



View Profile
« on: January 07, 2008, 08:29:43 PM »

Hi all,

since I learned from the "free Gigasampler" thread that I'm not the only one over here to switch his DAW from Windows to Linux it feels safe enough for me to start a new thread on that topic. Especially since Linux based DAWs really have come a long way over the past years.

Of course nothing on god's green earth is either black or white. So there'll always be arguments why one might favor the one OS and all the applications running on it for his DAW over the other. No discussion on that point. But on the other hand there might be some reasons why one might want to take at least a glimpse.

The point is, for us as musicians, there's a lot to discover. There's so much great software readily available and constantly improving, that it's hard to come by and don't have a look at it. So if you have a spare box laying around, are setting up a new DAW or just want to try out something new, grab one of the available music centric Linux distros and give it a try.

LiveCDs like Dynbolic (http://www.dynebolic.org) allow for trying it all out without wiping your regular OS. Simply put the CD in and boot the system. When you're done remove the CD and reboot to your regular OS. How easy could it be?

Distros like 64Studio (http://www.64studio.com) or Ubuntu Studio (http://ubuntustudio.org) are based on Debian Linux which provides a stable ground for any kind of specialized OS. If you're adventurous enough and try to install Ubuntu Studio on your computer you'll notice that it's in fact way easier to get your machine up and running with Ubuntu Linux than it is to do so with Windows. This comes mainly from the much simplified install routine and the fact that (as with 64Studio, too) the best software comes pre-installed with the system.

If you're interested, Sound on Sound ran an article on the topic in 2004: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/arti...mirrorimage.htm

Finally if you try out, I'd love to hear how it worked out for you.

El
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 09:02:16 PM by Elwood Blues » Logged

You have the capacity to learn from mistakes.  You'll learn a lot today.

In this age of all digital things, what was once analog is starting a revolution. (Preface of a sample-CD)

Oh, we usually have both - coun
rharve
Global Moderator
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2008, 09:41:49 PM »

Thanks, El
I just reread the dynabolic site and realized I have an xbox laying here with a 120gig drive (modded) that runs linux and they say ver 1.4.1 will work on it....sweet.
 May be doing some experimenting here once the download is complete. Who knows, maybe it'll lead to another linux convert..
I love what it did for my xbox!
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 09:44:42 PM by rharve » Logged

Bob
I play with Realband!
 Mastering Does Matter
Oren
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2008, 12:38:31 AM »

Just read the Dynebolic information - first I've heard of it. Subversive...grassroots...philosophical....by the people / for the people................gotta love it!

Ubuntu Studio has replaced windoze XP Pro here, except in those instances where I still have to resort to my old audio software while learning the finer points of these new Linux tools. The goal is to have all four computers running on the appropriate "flavour" of Ubuntu (Studio, All-Purpose, or Server) and be rid of XP/Vista as soon as possible.

Have look at:
http://ardour.org/
                    http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
                    http://jamin.sourceforge.net/en/about.html
                    http://www.hydrogen-music.org/
                    http://zynaddsubfx.sourceforge.net/  
                                                                        .......................................a few of my favourite audio tools.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 12:58:39 AM by Oren » Logged
tmon
Roadie
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2008, 06:01:49 AM »

XP Pro does the DAW job fine for me right now, but I am definitely looking at Linux for the future.  I would go Ubuntu before Vista, so I take interest in any threads reporting on developments on the Open Source side of things....

I am currently looking into building an Ubuntu Multimedia Center, just for audio and video playback, and maybe as a digital video recording workstation.....


Logged
rharve
Global Moderator
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2008, 07:56:57 AM »

Yeah, now that we know a couple of you guys have been thru it already, and it works, that makes it a strong contender for the future builds.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 07:57:17 AM by rharve » Logged

Bob
I play with Realband!
 Mastering Does Matter
Gary Batchelder
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 649



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2008, 09:32:18 AM »

I'll be looking into this fer sure.

Yesterday I went to Best Buy looking into a laptop deal they had advertised. The salesman told me Geek Squad could work on the Vista premium and other stuff it had installed on it, remove a lot of pre-installed stuff that bogs it down, ...AOL, etc. He said a lot of it is like a virus, hard to remove. He said they could then optimise it.
"Part of the deal?", says I.
"$150 more" ,says he.

Lets see.. pay for a computer and then pay to fix the sick OS and installed nonsense.

Like buying a brand new house and paying big to fix the wiring and have the garbage removed that the neighbors have been hauling in because of a deal they made with the contractor.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 10:02:45 AM by Gary Batchelder » Logged

Those who refuse to learn
tune their instrument
to its echo.

Dovepeace.com

Earache
Soundman
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2008, 11:18:46 AM »

Same notion here, that Linux would be my next move rather than Vista.  I'm about to do a rebuild on my "everything" box and have been thinking about dual booting it with a Linux install just to get a feel for it in the mean time.

Is there a preference to which OS should be installed first?  The main OS will be XP Pro, just want to be sure it will play nice if Linux is added afterwards.
Logged
harpo111
TapeOp
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2008, 11:51:43 AM »

have an old dell 1.6ghz machine here at the office...have a couple old 30gb drives...might give it a rip to see how it goes...
Logged

www.kirkwhitaker.com is up and running...drop on by

"He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like 
a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one 
of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country 
speaking at high schools about
Oren
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2008, 12:03:49 PM »

Quote from: Gary Batchelder
Yesterday I went to Best Buy looking into a laptop deal they had advertised......
Like buying a brand new house and paying big to fix the wiring and have the garbage removed that the neighbors have been hauling in because of a deal they made with the contractor.

Gary,

The gentleman who installed the original Linux O/S in my new music computer (I've since replaced with Ubuntu Studio) has recently done two AMD-equipped laptop O/S replacements with the Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon" distribution. They run better than new, although the owners had to learn the "Gnome" desktop and Linux software applications.
And no anti-virus software necessary - Linux changes and improves so rapidly that no-one bothers to write  malicious code for it. Linux buffs from all over the globe are constantly writing small upgrades to the software, and the cumulative effect is a daily metamorphosis - too hard to target. Doubtless, as Linux becomes more popular, some entrepreneur will "discover" a new virus/trojan/worm/boogeyman and attempt to market software that will protect us from it. It is theoretically possible to write malicious code for Linux, but the nasty software becomes out-of date in a matter of hours or days. Sort of like trying to hit a comet with a bow and arrow - possible, but highly unlikely.

In the immortal words of Bob Harvey: "...can you tell me, pilgrim, what it means to be set free?"  


Quote from: harpo111
have an old dell 1.6ghz machine here at the office...have a couple old 30gb drives...might give it a rip to see how it goes...

Further to this idea, any thoughts on the latest/greatest way to wipe a hard drive clean? I have a recent 500gig Seagate that I'd like to erase before putting into service as the second drive in a Linux machine.

Oren.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 12:04:42 PM by Oren » Logged
Mac
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2008, 12:41:16 PM »

This is the engineer side of Mac thinking here:

The virus problem is not a single-input, single-output situation.

Those currently using Linux belong to a select community while the majority of computers out there run that "other" OS.  From that larger pool of users, the greater majority are not all that computer savvy, to put it mildly.  

Therefore it can be safely said that there are simply orders of magnitude more targets for malicious attack at present time.  

Should Linux become as popular as Windoze in the world, I would expect the malicious attacks to turn their attention to the Linux OS.  

Of course, Linux is safe as long as that doesn't happen.  Or at least a lot safer.  

Same can be said for Macintosh OS, while not entirely virus free, Mac has enjoyed a good reputation concerning malicious attack for much the same reason.  If more people worldwide bought and used Macintosh system, expect that condition to change also.  


Enjoy,


--Mac
Logged
Bubbagump
Administrator
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3372



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2008, 12:47:25 PM »

It is a bit more than that. In real attempts to create viruses for the *nix OSs, it is mostly futile due to the under lying architecture. Several universities have been tryingto make them for years and so far they have only really been able to come up with 40 real viruses for *nix and the vat majority of those cannot survive outside of a lab and require very specific screw ups. I am not saying it can't happen, but I think even if the focus were shifted, it would still be  a much lower incidence of virus problem. It is Microsoft's use of the basic user as the admin that screws them over and over.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 12:49:35 PM by Bubbagump » Logged

Check out my bands, or at least the ones that have a web presence:
http://www.punchthemonkeyband.com
http://myspace.com/theslangrock
Mac
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2008, 01:51:56 PM »

And if everybody went to *nix, who would become the administrators?  

Answer is, "everybody".  


This is a circular sort of thing.  

But with whole governments putting funds into hackers now, it will continue to be problem regardless of OS, give or take a few semantic arguments of this sort.  



--Mac
Logged
Oren
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2008, 04:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Mac
And if everybody went to *nix, who would become the administrators?  
--Mac

Bubba is referring to a fundamental two-tiered method of managing a Unix-based system. Most activity is accomplished by the user in "everyday" mode. When access to critical systems is required, the user must sign on as "administrator" (Linux "root") to perform these tasks, then sign off to resume normal activities. An excellent set-up compared to the windoze "all access" mode where some critical systems are accessible at all times. And, according to a former Microsoft software designer, hellishly difficult to write malicious code for, even if the software remained static long enough for the virus to take effect - which it doesn't.

Remember, Linux is maintained and upgraded by thousands of talented software engineers who do not want their systems tampered with. The very nature of its design and constant improvement renders it permanently immune.
There are those who would like us to forget these facts and foster the kind of paranoia that sells "protective" software - to the point of hiring experts and engineers who will lend support to their fraudulent contentions. Just ignore them.  

Oren.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 04:52:56 PM by Oren » Logged
gnudad
Groupie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2008, 05:09:52 PM »

Plus linux has an intelligent file system.  Without root privileges and knowledge of "certain" commands, most damage would not be system-wide.  Remember, linux was born of the 'Net and it's inherent security is far and away superior to the way in which Windows has had to be patched and repatched to be even somewhat secure.

My $.02

Tom
Logged
Mac
Guest
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2008, 05:39:29 PM »

Just so everybody knows, I was working as a Unix guy in the day job back in the 80s...  

I need nobody to explain the inner workings of any OS, actually.  


Millions of people at home who are their own "administrator" (we used to call it Sysop) is the same thing as the XP or Vista admin situation, no matter the OS.  

The weakness is the people using the systems.  

One system may indeed be more robust against cyber attacks and malicious activity than another system, though.  My contention is that if there was good enough reason to have thousands around the world attacking Linux systems, they'd find a way to do so.  With millions of unschooled users out there, how many would or could be tricked into downloading and running something?  Perhaps what an attack looks and acts like might prove to be differen than the Windows based attacks known today, but there WOULD be attacks.  



--Mac



« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 05:40:55 PM by Mac » Logged
gnudad
Groupie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2008, 06:14:48 PM »

Absolutely, Mac.  And I don't have any doubts about your knowledge.  Just throwing a bit more "linux" info on the pile.

The vulnerability will always exist in the user, and unfortunately, there are some linux distros getting a bit "dumbed-down" and walking a thin line with regard to root privileges.  

But you are correct, the more popular you become, the more often people will take pot-shots at you.

Tom
Logged
Gary Batchelder
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 649



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2008, 06:21:46 PM »

[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]Remember, Linux is maintained and upgraded by thousands of talented software engineers who do not want their systems tampered with. The very nature of its design and constant improvement renders it permanently immune.  [/quote]

Hmmm... being of suspicious nature I am imagining one of those "thousands" slipping some obscure code in that would leave a door open for their later exploitation. Not slapping at the nature of the system but expressing a distrust in human nature. I am probably misunderstanding something.
Logged

Those who refuse to learn
tune their instrument
to its echo.

Dovepeace.com

rharve
Global Moderator
Producer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2008, 06:58:33 PM »

I think the protection there, Gary, is that since the code is open source there are a lot of people that could look at it and see who did what. Therefore your chance of getting caught are far greater, and the chance of a quick fix is improved also.  The source is not controlled by one company as a secret, therefore more people can keep an eye on what happens with it.  And since it is a close-knit community that communicates on a daily basis, it would be suicide to get caught doing that..
Logged

Bob
I play with Realband!
 Mastering Does Matter
Oren
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2008, 07:11:37 PM »

Quote from: Gary Batchelder
Hmmm... being of suspicious nature I am imagining one of those "thousands" slipping some obscure code in that would leave a door open for their later exploitation. Not slapping at the nature of the system but expressing a distrust in human nature. I am probably misunderstanding something.

Gary,

Being of a suspicious nature myself  , it occurred to me first off that back doors and dirty tricks would most likely be built into...anti-virus software, malicious code scanners, and bug nukers that we invite into our systems environment.
And this suspicious nature also suggests to me that malicious code might most successfully be written by anti-virus software purveyors - or - that Microsoft has invented stories of viruses that account for their most common software insufficiencies....oh yeah, I got a mittfull more  

Of late I've decided to put it all behind me and trust in the basic goodness of human nature while remaining as informed as possible. Scary, I know  , but what are the alternatives?

Oren.
Logged
Mac
Guest
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2008, 08:18:55 PM »

My suspicious nature has always been to look with one eye at the purveyors of anti-virus type softwares.  

They would indeed have a prurient interest in virus attacks, after all.  

Perhaps the biggest name is Norton, and if you've never tried to strip that piece of home-phoning, audio-interruping bloatware out without doing a full disk wipe and reinstall of system, you haven't lived.  


--Mac
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM