I recall an article on Slashdot about software companies (I can't 
remember which) that couldn't sell their software with a profit anymore, 
and released it as open source. That would be the best solution for 
everybody. Of course there still would have to be enough developers that 
want to work on it. That is actually something that can happen to open 
source software as well, if programmers lose interest in an open source 
product, it dies.

Steven Yi schreef:
> Hi All,
>
> I just saw a link to this from a Linux Audio mailing list that Tascam
> is ceasing development of Gigastudio:
>
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=1738
>
> This kind of thing has really been an issue for me, that closed source
> software that goes into an unsupported state severely limits the
> lifespan and history of computer music works.  I've discussed
> long-term software in lectures and about considering what you are
> investing time/money in in terms of future work.  I have referenced
> the issues that affected Apple users moving from OS9 to OSX, then
> again from PPC to Intel, how my friend was affected in half of his
> plugins were never ported to Intel, thus severely limiting his ability
> to open or reuse aspects of his project (basically he would need to
> keep an OSX PPC machine around if he ever wanted to look at the
> project again).
>
> Anyways, it's these kinds of situations that I am very concerned about
> when I think about computer music and the history of it.  I am a
> strong advocate for open source as well as investing in technologies
> based on virtual machines or interpreters where possible to protect
> investments of time/work.  Just wanted to bring this up for discussion
> as I think it's an important point involving our our work.
>
> Thanks,
> steven
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>   

-- 
  Mark
  _________________________________________
  When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
  When you get hardware, you make software.

Mark Van Peteghem wrote:
> I recall an article on Slashdot about software companies (I can't 
> remember which) that couldn't sell their software with a profit anymore, 
> and released it as open source. That would be the best solution for 
> everybody. Of course there still would have to be enough developers that 
> want to work on it. That is actually something that can happen to open 
> source software as well, if programmers lose interest in an open source 
> product, it dies.

I would be willing to bet that there is a lot of third-party licensed 
code in GigaStudio that would prevent its being open-sourced. I also 
heard a rumor about the possibility of Nemesys taking the product back 
and continuing support, though that one definitely remains to be seen.

I've been putting out messages and feelers looking for coders who might 
want to join me on an open source sampler project, which could also turn 
into various synthesis and effects projects. I'm a substandard C++ coder 
myself, being a sophomore engineering student, but I have been inspired 
lately to try to shake things up a little.

-- Darren Landrum

on 2008-07-23 at 16:40 Darren Landrum wrote:

>I've been putting out messages and feelers looking for coders who
>might want to join me on an open source sampler project, 

there is linuxsampler: http://www.linuxsampler.org/

luis jure wrote:
> on 2008-07-23 at 16:40 Darren Landrum wrote:
> 
>> I've been putting out messages and feelers looking for coders who
>> might want to join me on an open source sampler project, 
> 
> there is linuxsampler: http://www.linuxsampler.org/

I'm well aware of LinuxSampler. I have my reasons for not wanting to 
pursue that codebase, not the least of which being that my plan (such as 
it is) could make a lot more than just a sampler.

-- Darren

Probably the sticking point would be that Gigasampler's (or rather, 
Nemesys's / Tascam's) patent on zero-latency playback from disk is still 
alive, and regardless of what arguments can be made against the patent, 
it is hard to see Tascam themselves making it Open Source when a patent 
is involved.

Richard Dobson


Brad Fuller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Mark Van Peteghem
>  wrote:
>> I recall an article on Slashdot about software companies (I can't remember
>> which) that couldn't sell their software with a profit anymore, and released
>> it as open source. That would be the best solution for everybody. Of course
>> there still would have to be enough developers that want to work on it. That
>> is actually something that can happen to open source software as well, if
>> programmers lose interest in an open source product, it dies.
> 
> There's also cost associated with moving the source to FOSS. Even if
> the entire tree is owned by Tascam, they may not be willing to make it
> open because of the cost. Then again, they probably have the money
> (which maybe they could write off) and they would be seen as HEROES in
> the audio world.
> 

Brad Fuller wrote:

> There's also cost associated with moving the source to FOSS. Even if
> the entire tree is owned by Tascam, they may not be willing to make it
> open because of the cost.

The case of Blender is every interesting:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History

It was closed source and was "bought" by the open source community.

Erik
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"There are two kinds of people in the world, those that have children
and those that ARE children". Children are selfish, or more accurately
ego-centric. Children have a very short-sighted view of the world.
Offer a child one lolly now or the whole bag later and before you can
say ''Don't chop the dinosaur Daddy!'', it's in the gob."
-- my friend Scott

Brian Redfern wrote:
> I think what we really need is for csound to become the standard sound 
> engine for linux, similar to the function it plays on OLPC. If say 
> ubuntu linux had that kind of audio/midi functionality "out of the box" 
> it would be really powerful. Then you don't need seperate sampler or 
> synthesis programs, csound could act as the "defacto" softsynth and have 
> easy to use programs like Tam Tam in OLPC.

Is Csound capable of streaming hundreds of samples at a time from a 4GB 
sample set on disk?

Something that would be a real boon to Csound would be a "GUI builder" 
program that sent and received OSC messages from its widget set. And 
then there's my complaint about oversampling support, but that battle 
can be fought another time.

-- Darren

Darren Landrum wrote:
> Brian Redfern wrote:
>> I think what we really need is for csound to become the standard sound 
>> engine for linux, similar to the function it plays on OLPC. If say 
>> ubuntu linux had that kind of audio/midi functionality "out of the 
>> box" it would be really powerful. Then you don't need seperate sampler 
>> or synthesis programs, csound could act as the "defacto" softsynth and 
>> have easy to use programs like Tam Tam in OLPC.
> 
> Is Csound capable of streaming hundreds of samples at a time from a 4GB 
> sample set on disk?

I forgot three very important words here. "In real time."

-- Darren

Brian Redfern wrote:
> Well that's going to be a problem because of Tascam's patent on that 
> functionality, But with soft synths you don't need to use samples for a 
> lot of things. Waveguide flutes and other physical models run fine on my 
> low end system in realtime.

Okay, setting that aside for a moment, what about my other point? Could 
someone make a GUI builder application that interfaces with Csound via 
OSC or the API?

I'm not asking for amazing eye candy. Sometimes, though, a custom 
interface goes a long way to making a synth very usable.

-- Darren

Slightly off topic, but have you tried ubuntu studio? I'm about to 
install it on a fresh machine, I know I will still have to upgrade 
Csound but the other apps should be fairly up to date, or at least, I 
hope they are.

Rory.


Brian Redfern wrote:
> But I think the music/audio system on OLPC is an outstanding "proof of 
> concept" to show that if they are implemented creatively neither linux 
> nor csound necessarily have to be hard to use.
> 
> I don't use VST anymore after my Vista box ate itself. While I can't 
> argue that VST or AU isn't powerful, its not unproblematic.
> 
> All the compositions I wrote in csound 10 years ago still compile today. 
> But God help me if I want to work with the compositions I wrote using 
> Studio Vision for Mac OS 8.
> 
> What we need is something like Tam Tam for Ubuntu. Right now Ubuntu is 
> perhaps the easiest install, but its audio/music support is really 
> pretty mediocre "out of the box," it would be a huge "shot in the arm" 
> for the power of Ubuntu for musicians to have csound5 just sitting there 
> as a synthesis/audio layer with software that is easy to use running on 
> top of it.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Josh Lawrence  > wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Steven Yi      > wrote:
>      > This kind of thing has really been an issue for me, that closed
>     source
>      > software that goes into an unsupported state severely limits the
>      > lifespan and history of computer music works.  I've discussed
>      > long-term software in lectures and about considering what you are
>      > investing time/money in in terms of future work.
> 
>     I've spent a lot of time thinking about this recently, and as someone
>     who actively uses both closed and open source software, I would like
>     to chime in.
> 
>     I am not a programmer, but a simple user.  As such, I am frequently
>     overwhealmed at the complexity of getting certain things going on
>     Linux.  For example:  If I want to use Ardour on Debian testing, it
>     simply isn't available, so it must be compiled by hand.  Issues and
>     problems abound, and thus begins the (sometimes) hours of research to
>     learn what needs to be done to make it work.  Reaper on Windows XP?  A
>     new version comes out, I install it, and it works.  So for me,
>     closed-source software wins in the "ease of use catagory."
> 
>     Another example:  If my favorite application on Linux is abandoned, I
>     do not have the skills to resurrect it.  If my favorite application on
>     Windows is abandoned, I do not have access to the code to resurrect it
>     (even if I could).  So on this front, it's a draw.
> 
>     Software synthesizers.  Csound?  Yes, for sure, hands-down the winner.
>      But for simple, "stick it in and play" functionality, you just can't
>     beat VST instruments.  And God help you if you try to get that working
>     on Linux.  Closed-source software wins on this front.
> 
>     Some open-source advocates might respond that my lack of skill is at
>     fault here, and they would be correct.  Yet, I am not interested in
>     becoming a programmer, I simply want to make music with my computer.
>     For me, I need the complexity to get out of the way so I can focus on
>     what interests me most.  I suspect that there are many musicians just
>     like me that would happily use open-source software, if they could
>     just get it to work - consistantly, easily, etc.  Windows is, by most
>     accounts, an inferior OS to Linux, yet they have done an outstanding
>     job of providing a consistant infrastructure, promoting it, and making
>     stuff "just work."
> 
>     Until are addressed in Linux, I honestly can't see a compelling reason
>     to move 100% to open-sourced software.  So I use a mix of both.
> 
>     --
>     Josh Lawrence
>     http://www.hardbop200.com
> 
> 
>     Send bugs reports to this list.
>     To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk
>      with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 
> 

Matt Ingalls has written one for OSX which works with the apple 
developers tools. For other platforms users have been using existing 
python GUI builders and then simply plugging in their relevant Csound 
code. Michael Goggins seems to use this technique a lot for prototyping 
interfaces, he may even have produced a tutorial about this at some 
stage. Any approach you take will involve learning some new skills but 
I'm sure, 100% sure in fact that this will all become easier in the future.

Rory.





Darren Landrum wrote:
> Brian Redfern wrote:
>> Well that's going to be a problem because of Tascam's patent on that 
>> functionality, But with soft synths you don't need to use samples for 
>> a lot of things. Waveguide flutes and other physical models run fine 
>> on my low end system in realtime.
> 
> Okay, setting that aside for a moment, what about my other point? Could 
> someone make a GUI builder application that interfaces with Csound via 
> OSC or the API?
> 
> I'm not asking for amazing eye candy. Sometimes, though, a custom 
> interface goes a long way to making a synth very usable.
> 
> -- Darren
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"
> 

Okay, here's a question I can't find a ready answer to.

Can a new opcode be created written in the Csound language itself? Say, 
  if I wanted to make a new filter design using the more primitive 
Csound opcodes, as an example.

This would be equivalent to Reaktor's Core functionality, where basic 
elements can be combined and grouped together into new objects that can 
be used in the same way as any built-in object.

-- Darren

Yes, you can write a UDO, a user defined opcode. There is info on it in 
the manual, look under the 'opcode' opcode. Also check out Victors paper 
from the LAC a few years back,

lac.zkm.de/2005/papers/victor_lazzarini.pdf

Rory.


Darren Landrum wrote:
> Okay, here's a question I can't find a ready answer to.
> 
> Can a new opcode be created written in the Csound language itself? Say, 
>  if I wanted to make a new filter design using the more primitive Csound 
> opcodes, as an example.
> 
> This would be equivalent to Reaktor's Core functionality, where basic 
> elements can be combined and grouped together into new objects that can 
> be used in the same way as any built-in object.
> 
> -- Darren
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"
> 

Yes; UDO (User Defined Opcodes) are precisely that.
==John ff

Josh Lawrence wrote:
> I am not a programmer, but a simple user.  As such, I am frequently
> overwhealmed at the complexity of getting certain things going on
> Linux.  For example:  If I want to use Ardour on Debian testing, it
> simply isn't available, so it must be compiled by hand.  Issues and
> problems abound, and thus begins the (sometimes) hours of research to
> learn what needs to be done to make it work.  Reaper on Windows XP?  A
> new version comes out, I install it, and it works.  So for me,
> closed-source software wins in the "ease of use catagory."

Do you pay for new versions of Reaper, or have you paid for it in the past?  Have you 
ever donated to the Csound project, or any other OSS audio project?  Or offered a 
contract programming job to implement some functionality in OSS?  Time is a limited 
resource, and most OSS programmers and projects have to set priorities.  Installers 
and packages for multiple platforms are especially problematic because of the expense 
of acquiring multiple hardware configurations and the effort to coordinate multiple 
OS configurations.  Just because you aren't a programmer doesn't mean you can't 
contribute to open source :)

> Software synthesizers.  Csound?  Yes, for sure, hands-down the winner.
>  But for simple, "stick it in and play" functionality, you just can't
> beat VST instruments.  And God help you if you try to get that working
> on Linux.  Closed-source software wins on this front.

While I'm sympathetic to most of your points, I would certainly disagree with this. 
I've had more problems caused by poorly-written VST instruments than open-source 
software has ever provided.  Also, support for OSS software tends to be better than 
support for my current DAW of choice (which happens to be a commercial, closed-source 
product).

John W. Lato
Sarah and Ernest Butler School of Music
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station E3100
Austin, TX 78712-0435
(512) 232-2090

This is precisely why I am moving away from commercial software to 
Csound--hanging up the upgrade wave surfboard for good. Thanks for 
articulating the issues.

--David

At 01:22 PM 7/23/2008, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I just saw a link to this from a Linux Audio mailing list that Tascam
>is ceasing development of Gigastudio:
>
>http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=1738
>
>This kind of thing has really been an issue for me, that closed source
>software that goes into an unsupported state severely limits the
>lifespan and history of computer music works.  I've discussed
>long-term software in lectures and about considering what you are
>investing time/money in in terms of future work.  I have referenced
>the issues that affected Apple users moving from OS9 to OSX, then
>again from PPC to Intel, how my friend was affected in half of his
>plugins were never ported to Intel, thus severely limiting his ability
>to open or reuse aspects of his project (basically he would need to
>keep an OSX PPC machine around if he ever wanted to look at the
>project again).
>
>Anyways, it's these kinds of situations that I am very concerned about
>when I think about computer music and the history of it.  I am a
>strong advocate for open source as well as investing in technologies
>based on virtual machines or interpreters where possible to protect
>investments of time/work.  Just wanted to bring this up for discussion
>as I think it's an important point involving our our work.
>
>Thanks,
>steven
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body 
>"unsubscribe csound"

David Mooney:  dmooney@city-net.com
Maxine Heller:  mheller@city-net.com
Opaque Melodies:  www.city-net.com/~moko/