Cons And Limitations Of "Free" DAWs

[Robert Randolph]

Free is also about making something accessible. It's not very accessible if you require the computer user to be able to know about compiling a binary. But i'm doubtful that you're even willing to consider that.

Great, then none of these are "free". Since none of them run on every desktop operating system (except Ardour gets the major 3 right... funny enough). We can just notch off Samplitude, podium and LMMS, since I can't run them. I know lots of Linux folks that can't run Tracktion, Studio One or PT first at all, so that's right off too. What's left?

Accessibility is a silly restriction to put on "free". Poor dude in tanzania with his tickets that aren't really free

And anyway, Ardour is still 'free as in speech' (or freedom). So that doesn't change via accessibility OR cost.

[lilyyy]

Ok, then everyone is able to compile software themselves.

Yeah, actually, they can. Anyone can take the time to learn the skills they need to do whatever it is they want to do. Obviously some things aren't immediate but that doesn't make them impossible.

Free is also about making something accessible.

No, it isn't. The definition of "free" in this instance is "without cost or payment".

It's not very accessible if you require the computer user to be able to know about compiling a binary.

This much is true.

[chk071]

Free is also about making something accessible. It's not very accessible if you require the computer user to be able to know about compiling a binary. But i'm doubtful that you're even willing to consider that.

Great, then none of these are "free". Since none of them run on every desktop operating system (except Ardour gets the major 3 right... funny enough). We can just notch off Samplitude, podium and LMMS, since I can't run them. I know lots of Linux folks that can't run Tracktion, Studio One or PT first at all, so that's right off too. What's left?

What a weird argument is that? Other free hosts actually come with binaries which at least the common computer user is able to execute on his machine. Of course not every software is being developed cross platform.

[lilyyy]

What a weird argument is that? Other free hosts actually come with binaries which at least the common computer user is able to execute on his machine. Of course not every software is being developed cross platform.

But you're also arguing that it isn't free because you don't have a "distro", which I guess might be a misunderstanding on your part. "Distro" just means "version of Linux". So Arduor can run simply as a binary on Linux.

[Robert Randolph]

Free is also about making something accessible. It's not very accessible if you require the computer user to be able to know about compiling a binary. But i'm doubtful that you're even willing to consider that.

Great, then none of these are "free". Since none of them run on every desktop operating system (except Ardour gets the major 3 right... funny enough). We can just notch off Samplitude, podium and LMMS, since I can't run them. I know lots of Linux folks that can't run Tracktion, Studio One or PT first at all, so that's right off too. What's left?

What a weird argument is that? Other free hosts actually come with binaries which at least the common computer user is able to execute on his machine. Of course not every software is being developed cross platform.

You can get a free binary for Ardour on basically any linux distro.

[chk071]

Well, i think there is a big misunderstanding here. Most people who do music with their computers actually have Windows or Mac computers. Apart from that, you will still only get Ardour for free as source code, even for Linux, at the Ardour site.

Anyway, argue all that you want. If people want to get Ardour, they'd most probably visit the website. And see that it isn't for free, unless they want to compile, which surely only "specialized" people will even know what that means.

Which is typical "Linux" again btw. "Wha? Who needs GUI's when we have such powerful tools as the command line."

[LawrenceF]

Yeah. It's confusing but basically it has a full time developer who doesn't do anything else so the only way he can support that is to charge for builds and take donations. It has to be rebuilt for every update or bug fix or similar.

The other case would be a free daw with not as many features where nobody is really working on it full time. It's very easily the most powerful free conventional audio daw.

[chk071]

Yeah. It's confusing but basically it has a full time developer who doesn't do anything else so the only way he can support that is to charge for builds and take donations.

Well, exactly. I haven't yet heard of anyone being able to live on free work. Why argue that it's free then, when it isn't? I mean, it's nice that you can get it for free, when you compile it, or use a Linux distro which has it available in its package manager, but for the big majority of people on Windows or Mac computers, which dunno sh*** about compiling, it won't be for free. We're arguing theory vs. reality here.

[Zexila]

Which is typical "Linux" again btw. "Wha? Who needs GUI's when we have such powerful tools as the command line."

[LawrenceF]

Edit: Let me frame this in a different way to be better understood.

A guy codes and tests a free daw and says...

"Here it is, come get it, all you have to do is compile it or get someone else to, It's free. But... because I have to pay for a website and download bandwidth and all that other stuff and I do have to eat, if you get it fully built directly from me, you'll have to pay something tiny for the convenience. Otherwise, get it from anywhere."

Of course, most people can't compile a daw, but for all practical purposes, all it takes is one guy anywhere who can to do that once a quarter or whatever to give it to everyone else and neither he nor anyone he gives it to will ever have to pay anything.

Trust me, if Steinberg started giving away their Cubase source code and it had no license restrictions, a lot of us would probably find a way to build it... or find a copy that somebody else built.

[xoxos]

but for all practical purposes, all it takes is one guy anywhere who can to do that once a quarter or whatever to give it to everyone else and neither he nor anyone he gives it to will ever have to pay anything.

eg. http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6549119

because from actual experience i am sooo sure that the public will be entirely supportive of such works and certainly no one will snap their fingers and call, "hey, sheep, over here, stare at these juicy new products" and then the developer will find their personal life interfered with by ninja until only bigfoot is using their software because people need trancegates.

how that works. have a nice life everybody.

[whyterabbyt]

Yeah. It's confusing but basically it has a full time developer who doesn't do anything else so the only way he can support that is to charge for builds and take donations.

Well, exactly. I haven't yet heard of anyone being able to live on free work. Why argue that it's free then, when it isn't? I mean, it's nice that you can get it for free, when you compile it, or use a Linux distro which has it available in its package manager, but for the big majority of people on Windows or Mac computers, which dunno sh*** about compiling, it won't be for free. We're arguing theory vs. reality here.

Yes. The reality is that it is free. It is available with zero financial outlay. Your theory appears to be that since it might not be immediately installable by some people on some platforms, then it doesnt count as free, and your basis for this appears to be that you personally have redefined 'free' to mean 'zero cost and immediately available without any additional technical skills or work on the users part'.

I'd prefer you stuck to reality, and the shared consensus on the meaning of words, thanks. If you want to start a thread on 'cons and limitations of DAWS which cost nothing but require some work to install or build on some of the platforms its available for' then please start the appropriate thread, but this isnt it.

[BertKoor]

@ the OP ( harryupbabble, that's YOU) Sorry to see that your harmless thread exploded into splitting semantic hairs and an endless argument about academic issues with an operating system none of the arguers actually use. Such is KVR sometimes

Anyway: why exactly did you abandon Reaper? I've been told that after the trial period it keeps on functioning without any limitation other than seeding a bit of doubt in your moral centre. Did that change? Besides that, isn't it totally worth it's modest price tag? Is a hobby not worth a small investment in the used tools every now and then? Just asking...

[Numanoid]

Time that Psycle gets mentioned

http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/portal.php

The tracker interface "might not be for everybody", but I find it easy to use, and it works well with third party plugs.

[Robert Randolph]

Time that Psycle gets mentioned

http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/portal.php

The tracker interface "might not be for everybody", but I find it easy to use, and it works well with third party plugs.

Psychle doesn't run easily on my OS and I'd have to re-install an entirely different operating system to use it without jumping through hoops. So I don't think it counts as free.