Yeah, I was about to suggest to him one of the many Linux distros that are geared specifically towards sound production.  Demudi, Ubuntu Studio, Planet CCRMA, the list goes on.  These distros come with all the audio software you'd ever want (including Ardour) ready to go. They also come with real-time kernels, which can be a real pain to setup on vanilla distros.

Michael Bechard



----- Original Message ----
From: Rory Walsh 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:34:16 AM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: The case for open source

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"
> 
> 


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"



      

> using 'invalue'/'outvalue' instead of OSC though... the OSC bridge
> would be a really nice addition..!

I'm pretty sure these frontends can provide an OSC bridge, the only 
caveat is that they do so through Csound. For example, an event is sent 
from a slider to Csound which retrieves the slider value using the 
channel opcodes, Csound then sends this info as OSC to wherever you 
like. Seems a bit much. Am I right in thinking you would like to see a 
purely OSC GUI toolkit that could be plugged into whatever system one 
wishes?

Rory.

> 
> -David
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Michael Bechard wrote on 7/24/08 12:03 PM:

> Yeah, I was about to suggest to him one of the many Linux distros that are
> geared specifically towards sound production.  Demudi, Ubuntu Studio, Planet
> CCRMA, the list goes on.

Do any of these come pre-packaged for PowerPC-based computers?

John Lato wrote on 7/24/08 12:51 PM:

> 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?  [...] Just because you aren't a programmer doesn't mean you can't
> contribute to open source :)

I love this!  That last sentence could be the slogan for a fund-raising
campaign ;)

Steven Yi wrote on 7/24/08 1:42 PM:

> Just wanted to mention about Java, [...] It's also GPL and the OpenJDK
> has reached full compatibility with the previously closed source
> version.

Has this all reached fruition now?  Is Java actually open source (and
available as such) ?

> The big value for me is I compile once and run everywhere regardless
> of OS, hardware architecture, etc.

Well ... I suppose this is true if you limit yourself to the most popular
systems and architectures (Windows, OS X, or Linux x86) and a few select
others.  I have not tried again recently, but Java on Linux PPC has been a
"no go" for me in the past.

> So from my point of view, Java is actually one of the safest languages
> and development platforms for building long-term software.

In general, I agree with this sentiment and with the long-term advantages of
open-source software.  Many of you know how frustrating my experiences with
old Apple hardware/software have been.  I have just spent the last week
configuring and playing with a new Intel iMac running OS X 10.5 for a family
member.  The combination of the slick hardware and the tightly-integrated,
media-rich software experience is very seductive!  But I have to remind
myself that five years from now, unless one upgrades, some of the features
of that system will not work (eg. the weather Dashboard widget and Front Row
movie previews).  And while I can live without those, the likelihood that no
one will be developing for or supporting 10.5 by the time 10.7 (or whatever)
comes out is very high based on past experience.

At least with open-source software, I may be able to make the needed changes
to keep critical tools running on my system (as I have done with Csound on
Mac OS 9 now for several years).

Anthony Kozar
Providing custom open-source software services for musicians:
http://services.anthonykozar.net/

Thanks, Steven, for the update on Java!  I am happy that it is finally
available in an open source package that works :)

I got off the "upgrade wave" as David called it about six years ago.  I fear
that Apple will continue to pull its games but I am currently comtemplating
upgrading one of our computers to OS X 10.4 or 10.5 (if I can give up
Classic) anyways.  I also may just install the latest Ubuntu PPC.  Either
way I will use mostly open source music software in my "work", but does
anyone have any opinions on the matter?  Is there any reason to go with OS X
other than iApps and the ability for me to more easily develop open source
software for OS X users?  (I have 10.2 right now and I have been told a few
times now by open source developers that 10.2 is "obsolete")

Being able to use blue is a big motivator for me, so it would also have to
work in Linux PPC for me to really go that route ...  (blue does run fine in
10.2 -- thanks Steven ^_^ )

Anthony Kozar
mailing-lists-1001 AT anthonykozar DOT net
http://anthonykozar.net/


Steven Yi wrote on 7/25/08 2:50 PM:

> Java is indeed open source now.  Fedora is now packaging the OpenJDK
> project with the latest release, and it looks like Ubuntu Hardy Heron
> has it as well.  [...]

> FYI: Regarding Apple, they released Java 6 but only for 64-bit OSX
> releases.  This kind of practice is why I don't want to invest in
> Apple products [...]

Hi there Anthony,

Here's a short ramble:

I have a dual boot ppc powerbook, on which I run OSX10.4 and DebianPPC 
testing, which I believe is not too different to Ubuntu. I'm still very 
much learning about Linux and I'm far from being an expert. I do almost 
all csound stuff on Debian (Mr. Sateler's Debian package was a godsend), 
but there are certain things which I need OSX for - like skype (I live 
in Japan and my family are in the UK), and some of the internet stuff 
(flash etc.) is very flakey. The advantage is that the Debian system is 
pretty much exclusively for music - with no distractions! The freebob 
drivers for my firewire soundcard (a presonus firebox) now work fine on 
Debian, but I had to compile myself a new kernel to do it - not too hard 
really and there is plenty of information out there. It's worth checking 
if there are some packages that you need to use on the Linux distro - 
there is not quite so much available for ppc linux as there is for i386.

Hope this is of some use,

Joe

Anthony Kozar wrote:
> Thanks, Steven, for the update on Java!  I am happy that it is finally
> available in an open source package that works :)
> 
> I got off the "upgrade wave" as David called it about six years ago.  I fear
> that Apple will continue to pull its games but I am currently comtemplating
> upgrading one of our computers to OS X 10.4 or 10.5 (if I can give up
> Classic) anyways.  I also may just install the latest Ubuntu PPC.  Either
> way I will use mostly open source music software in my "work", but does
> anyone have any opinions on the matter?  Is there any reason to go with OS X
> other than iApps and the ability for me to more easily develop open source
> software for OS X users?  (I have 10.2 right now and I have been told a few
> times now by open source developers that 10.2 is "obsolete")
> 
> Being able to use blue is a big motivator for me, so it would also have to
> work in Linux PPC for me to really go that route ...  (blue does run fine in
> 10.2 -- thanks Steven ^_^ )
> 
> Anthony Kozar
> mailing-lists-1001 AT anthonykozar DOT net
> http://anthonykozar.net/
> 
> 
> Steven Yi wrote on 7/25/08 2:50 PM:
> 
>> Java is indeed open source now.  Fedora is now packaging the OpenJDK
>> project with the latest release, and it looks like Ubuntu Hardy Heron
>> has it as well.  [...]
> 
>> FYI: Regarding Apple, they released Java 6 but only for 64-bit OSX
>> releases.  This kind of practice is why I don't want to invest in
>> Apple products [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

PS I think Ubuntu PPC is a bit different to Ubuntu i386 in that it's not 
officially supported any more (I think). That put me off a bit, which is 
why I went for Debian.

Anthony Kozar wrote:
> Thanks, Steven, for the update on Java!  I am happy that it is finally
> available in an open source package that works :)
> 
> I got off the "upgrade wave" as David called it about six years ago.  I fear
> that Apple will continue to pull its games but I am currently comtemplating
> upgrading one of our computers to OS X 10.4 or 10.5 (if I can give up
> Classic) anyways.  I also may just install the latest Ubuntu PPC.  Either
> way I will use mostly open source music software in my "work", but does
> anyone have any opinions on the matter?  Is there any reason to go with OS X
> other than iApps and the ability for me to more easily develop open source
> software for OS X users?  (I have 10.2 right now and I have been told a few
> times now by open source developers that 10.2 is "obsolete")
> 
> Being able to use blue is a big motivator for me, so it would also have to
> work in Linux PPC for me to really go that route ...  (blue does run fine in
> 10.2 -- thanks Steven ^_^ )
> 
> Anthony Kozar
> mailing-lists-1001 AT anthonykozar DOT net
> http://anthonykozar.net/
> 
> 
> Steven Yi wrote on 7/25/08 2:50 PM:
> 
>> Java is indeed open source now.  Fedora is now packaging the OpenJDK
>> project with the latest release, and it looks like Ubuntu Hardy Heron
>> has it as well.  [...]
> 
>> FYI: Regarding Apple, they released Java 6 but only for 64-bit OSX
>> releases.  This kind of practice is why I don't want to invest in
>> Apple products [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Thanks very much Joe and Brian for the advice!

As much as I'd like to keep the extra $100 and thumb my nose at Apple, I
think I will also need to install both a newer OS X and Linux.  My wife
would also like to run Skype and Google Earth, while I may need iChat and
stuff for communicating with my family.  But I would love to have a recent
Linux system at my finger tips too although I am more interested in
non-realtime apps like Common Music, CLM, and Snd.  So, even though
dual-booting is a bit of a drag, I think that will be the way to go. *
(I'll probably even leave 10.2 on another drive so that I can test software
I compile on multiple versions of OS X).

Thanks!

Anthony

* The computer I use everyday right now has OS 9.1, OS 9.2, OS 8.6, OS 10.1,
and Mandrake 9.1 installed on it although I rarely use any of those but the
first nowadays :)


Joseph Sanger wrote on 7/26/08 12:03 AM:

> I have a dual boot ppc powerbook, on which I run OSX10.4 and DebianPPC
> testing, which I believe is not too different to Ubuntu. I'm still very
> much learning about Linux and I'm far from being an expert. I do almost
> all csound stuff on Debian (Mr. Sateler's Debian package was a godsend),
> but there are certain things which I need OSX for - like skype (I live
> in Japan and my family are in the UK), and some of the internet stuff
> (flash etc.) is very flakey. The advantage is that the Debian system is
> pretty much exclusively for music - with no distractions! The freebob
> drivers for my firewire soundcard (a presonus firebox) now work fine on
> Debian, but I had to compile myself a new kernel to do it - not too hard
> really and there is plenty of information out there. It's worth checking
> if there are some packages that you need to use on the Linux distro -
> there is not quite so much available for ppc linux as there is for i386.

Well, I believe that BootCamp is an Intel Mac-only utility (but I could be
wrong).  All of my machines are PowerPC Macs *, the latest of which has a
version of Open Firmware that can directly boot Linux, Mac OS X, or Mac OS 9
with the press of a key.  Older PPC Macs like my Beige G3 use a boot loader
called BootX that has to partially boot into Mac OS before loading the linux
kernel.

I am trying to figure out what this discussion has to do with Csound :)
Unfortunately, when I had access to a shiny new Intel iMac last week with OS
X 10.5 on it, I did not have time to install the developer tools and compile
a 10.5-Intel package of Csound for all of you.  I am encouraged though that
Joe Sanger was able to get the latest Debian package (source package, I
assume) of Csound to work on Linux PPC.  I may be able to start providing
binary packages for that platform once I migrate.

Are there any more opinions regarding Debian PPC versus UbuntuPPC (or any
other PPC distros)?  I am really drawn towards Ubuntu because of its ease of
use and default Gnome environment.  But I don't want to end up frustrated
because of lack of support for PPC.  I remember Mandrake similarly dropping
their PPC port (which at the time was the best for PPC as Ubuntu seems to
have been more recently).  Anyone have the latest Ubuntu PPC installed?
Does the Csound Debian package work on Ubuntu PPC?  (Just curious -- I can
certainly compile Csound myself).

Thanks.

Anthony

* (Ok.  I actually have several 68k Macs too but I will soon be giving away
any machine older than my G3s -- want one? ;-)

Brian Redfern wrote on 7/28/08 2:08 PM:

> That's always a good solution as well, sounds like you can go beyond dual
> booting the mac and boot a variety of things, I was under the impression
> that one could only dual boot windows with bootcamp, I tried to use bootcamp
> to install linux on a mac box and didn't get very far.

Hi there,

Just to clarify: I have the Debian BINARY package of csound working on 
my ppc powerbook with no problems so far. Many thanks for all the hard work.

As for why Debian vs Ubuntu, I'm not an expert, but I think there are 
more packages available for Debian generally speaking - I use testing. 
Gnome seems to be the default environment as well. I find it pretty easy 
to use / install, and it was the first I tried. More recently I tried 
Gentoo and got into a right mess (probably my own fault).

The reason I prefer Debian to OSX for doing csound work is partly 
because it feels good to use all open source, but also lots of little 
things that are more configurable. My eyesight isn't great, so it's nice 
to have big menus - I can't seem to do this on OSX without changing the 
screen resolution! Sounds ridiculous, but I've tried. Also, I can open 
"my preferred text editor" and make it full-screen (without lots of 
pesky little menubars everywhere), multiple desktops, easy keyboard 
shortcuts etc. It doesn't sound like much, but it really makes a 
difference. Then of course there's all the Linux tools, like Jack etc. 
(Although Jack runs on OSX of course)

One other thing: When I was experimenting with Linux for the first time 
I tested a Hammond Organ-like csound instrument I'd made, on both OSX 
and Linux (on the same powerbook), with MIDI, and when running on Linux 
there was substantially more polyphony available before the sound 
started breaking up. I can't remember the details, but it was about four 
or five notes simultaneously on OSX and ten or twelve on Debian. I've 
been concentrating on non-real-time recently so I haven't tried for a 
while. Maybe I should do a proper test...

Joe

Felipe Sateler wrote:
> FWIW, Debian builds csound for the following architectures:
> 
> amd64, arm, armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, m68k, s390, sparc
> 
> Whether they work or not, it's a different thing, but I don't think it should 
> make much of a difference.
> 
> El 31/07/08 13:08 Anthony Kozar escribió:
>> Well, I believe that BootCamp is an Intel Mac-only utility (but I could be
>> wrong).  All of my machines are PowerPC Macs *, the latest of which has a
>> version of Open Firmware that can directly boot Linux, Mac OS X, or Mac OS
>> 9 with the press of a key.  Older PPC Macs like my Beige G3 use a boot
>> loader called BootX that has to partially boot into Mac OS before loading
>> the linux kernel.
>>
>> I am trying to figure out what this discussion has to do with Csound :)
>> Unfortunately, when I had access to a shiny new Intel iMac last week with
>> OS X 10.5 on it, I did not have time to install the developer tools and
>> compile a 10.5-Intel package of Csound for all of you.  I am encouraged
>> though that Joe Sanger was able to get the latest Debian package (source
>> package, I assume) of Csound to work on Linux PPC.  I may be able to start
>> providing binary packages for that platform once I migrate.
>>
>> Are there any more opinions regarding Debian PPC versus UbuntuPPC (or any
>> other PPC distros)?  I am really drawn towards Ubuntu because of its ease
>> of use and default Gnome environment.  But I don't want to end up
>> frustrated because of lack of support for PPC.  I remember Mandrake
>> similarly dropping their PPC port (which at the time was the best for PPC
>> as Ubuntu seems to have been more recently).  Anyone have the latest Ubuntu
>> PPC installed? Does the Csound Debian package work on Ubuntu PPC?  (Just
>> curious -- I can certainly compile Csound myself).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> * (Ok.  I actually have several 68k Macs too but I will soon be giving away
>> any machine older than my G3s -- want one? ;-)
>>
>> Brian Redfern wrote on 7/28/08 2:08 PM:
>>> That's always a good solution as well, sounds like you can go beyond dual
>>> booting the mac and boot a variety of things, I was under the impression
>>> that one could only dual boot windows with bootcamp, I tried to use
>>> bootcamp to install linux on a mac box and didn't get very far.
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
> 
> 
> 
> Saludos,
> Felipe Sateler

> Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> FWIW, Debian builds csound for the following architectures:
>> 
>> amd64, arm, armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, m68k, s390, sparc

Joseph Sanger wrote on 7/31/08 8:26 PM:

> Just to clarify: I have the Debian BINARY package of csound working on
> my ppc powerbook with no problems so far. Many thanks for all the hard work.

Ah, OK!  I am showing my ignorance again -- did not know that binaries would
be built for so many architectures :)

> As for why Debian vs Ubuntu, I'm not an expert, but I think there are
> more packages available for Debian generally speaking - I use testing.
> Gnome seems to be the default environment as well. I find it pretty easy
> to use / install, and it was the first I tried. More recently I tried
> Gentoo and got into a right mess (probably my own fault).

I will look into Debian more closely.  I've always assumed that Ubuntu would
be easier to install and configure but many of my recent assumptions are
turning out to be wrong ...

> The reason I prefer Debian to OSX for doing csound work is partly
> because it feels good to use all open source, but also lots of little
> things that are more configurable. My eyesight isn't great, so it's nice
> to have big menus - I can't seem to do this on OSX without changing the
> screen resolution! Sounds ridiculous, but I've tried.

This is a very significant issue with OS X!  I just finished setting up a
new computer for my grandfather and we ran into exactly the same problem.
Unfortunately, some programs do not work well at low resolutions.

> One other thing: When I was experimenting with Linux for the first time
> I tested a Hammond Organ-like csound instrument I'd made, on both OSX
> and Linux (on the same powerbook), with MIDI, and when running on Linux
> there was substantially more polyphony available before the sound
> started breaking up.

I am not terribly surprised by this.  The Aqua GUI is known to be a
processor hog.  A dual processor machine makes a huge difference for running
Csound.  On my Dual G4, Csound can typically max out one CPU while the "True
Blue environment" (that's Aqua) consumes the other.  The relative
performances seemed to be reversed though for Mac OS 9 and Mandrake Linux on
my G3.  OS 9's GUI was significantly more responsive and at the time that I
tried, I think CodeWarrior did a better job of optimizing the Csound code on
PPC than GCC.

Thanks again for the comments about Linux on PPC.

Anthony