Ardour 4.0 released (Linux, Mac and Windows)
-
christianmusicmaker christianmusicmaker https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12152
- KVRAF
- 1670 posts since 1 Feb, 2004 from UK
Nicekurviak wrote:$12 ($1 monthly minimum) is for one year of upgrades. You can get the current full version any time for just $1 (minimum)christianmusicmaker wrote:For $12 ($1 minimum monthly) there is quite a lot on offer for the money. Might not sway users of other DAWS immediately (or anytime soon) but there appears to be plenty on offer here for a very small outlay. Not bad at all.
- KVRist
- 286 posts since 19 Jun, 2004
Hehe, I remember when Paul Davis (Main Dev) told me (years ago), that Ardour will never work in Windows because of Posix and he will eat his hat when it will do. Did the hat was delicious, Paul?
Ah and he told me many things about the advantage of JACK and the modularity of Unix apps... and that VST support will never be part of Ardour, because of the free, modular and pure architecture of this DAW .
Times changing
Ah and he told me many things about the advantage of JACK and the modularity of Unix apps... and that VST support will never be part of Ardour, because of the free, modular and pure architecture of this DAW .
Times changing
[del]AudioLinux sucks.[/del]
-
- KVRist
- 318 posts since 27 Apr, 2005 from right beside you
Lump wrote:Hehe, I remember when Paul Davis (Main Dev) told me (years ago), that Ardour will never work in Windows because of Posix and he will eat his hat when it will do. Did the hat was delicious, Paul?
Ah and he told me many things about the advantage of JACK and the modularity of Unix apps... and that VST support will never be part of Ardour, because of the free, modular and pure architecture of this DAW .
Times changing
Well: http://ardour.org/windows.html
Still not really supported.
Can this thread be erased?
Im tired of the fanboys and the clueless know it alls.
Im tired of the fanboys and the clueless know it alls.
-
- KVRian
- 513 posts since 6 Mar, 2012
I wonder why no specific Windows version can be downloaded from the website, even though the Windows compatibility is emphasized. All I can find on the website is a "Source Code for all platforms " version, which needs to be compiled, however. And even though my knowledge of IT and PCs is pretty good, I still wouldn't know how to compile a source code for my system.pc999 wrote: Ardour now runs on GNU/Linux, OS X and for the first time, Windows.
Would it be asking too much from the Ardour support to simply place a few download-ready Windows versions (Vista, 7, 8 / 32 + 64 bits) in the download section?
- Beware the Quoth
- 33178 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
http://ardour.org/windows.htmlSkorpius wrote:I wonder why no specific Windows version can be downloaded from the website, even though the Windows compatibility is emphasized. All I can find on the website is a "Source Code for all platforms " version, which needs to be compiled, however. And even though my knowledge of IT and PCs is pretty good, I still wouldn't know how to compile a source code for my system.pc999 wrote: Ardour now runs on GNU/Linux, OS X and for the first time, Windows.
Would it be asking too much from the Ardour support to simply place a few download-ready Windows versions (Vista, 7, 8 / 32 + 64 bits) in the download section?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRist
- 73 posts since 25 Sep, 2004 from Galisteo, NM, USA
I said that about JACK, not Ardour.Lump wrote:Hehe, I remember when Paul Davis (Main Dev) told me (years ago), that Ardour will never work in Windows because of Posix and he will eat his hat when it will do. Did the hat was delicious, Paul?
I may have revised my opinions about monolithic applications, but I never would have explained the lack of VST support in the past based on this reason. VST support was (and in some respects still is) a problem because of Steinberg's stupid licensing of the VST API.Ah and he told me many things about the advantage of JACK and the modularity of Unix apps... and that VST support will never be part of Ardour, because of the free, modular and pure architecture of this DAW .
-
- KVRist
- 73 posts since 25 Sep, 2004 from Galisteo, NM, USA
Would it be asking people too much to simply scroll their browser window when they are reading http://ardour.org/download?Skorpius wrote: Would it be asking too much from the Ardour support to simply place a few download-ready Windows versions (Vista, 7, 8 / 32 + 64 bits) in the download section?
-
- KVRAF
- 35448 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
You mean like it collides with your open source license?dawhead wrote:VST support was (and in some respects still is) a problem because of Steinberg's stupid licensing of the VST API.
-
- KVRist
- 73 posts since 25 Sep, 2004 from Galisteo, NM, USA
It collides with the ability of anyone who wants to compile VST-enabled software without visiting the Steinberg web site, registering and downloading the SDK from there.chk071 wrote:You mean like it collides with your open source license?dawhead wrote:VST support was (and in some respects still is) a problem because of Steinberg's stupid licensing of the VST API.
Why they don't simply allow redistribution of the header files without modification, I have no idea.
In the real world, the VST spec has now been reverse engineered by a "clean room" team, and so this is no longer a practical problem. But it is just pig-headed of Steinberg/Yamaha, and/or just the result of bureaucratic nonsense, since when I discussed it with them back in 2002 they were actually quite keen to change this. But they never did.
-
- KVRist
- 73 posts since 25 Sep, 2004 from Galisteo, NM, USA
Well, I guess if by "your open source license" you mean any and all open source licenses that require that redistribution includes everything needed to build, then .. yes. But that's more than just the GPL.chk071 wrote:So, in other words, yes to my question?