Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
i think you mean that in aggregate the top earning 1% make 11 times more than the lowest earning 50%, but only play 9 times more in taxes. the way you had written it out makes no sense.
linux doesn't only ship with a timeshare scheduler. it includes both the SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR schedulers, which provide close-to-real-time
scheduling capabilities. most pro apps in
the audio realm use one or both of these. they can both be used alongside the SCHED_OTHER ("timeshare") scheduler.
what would be more interesting would be CPU
cycle reservation, which is already present
in OS X, and would be very useful for any
streaming media software.
it doesn't matter who built the machines. why would there be any humans left? why would there be any actual zion at all? if neo is a program, why isn't everything else a program too? the question seems to hinge on whether the claim about humans being farmed is true or not. if its true, then the presence of human avatars in the matrix makes sense. but if that story is not true (and perhaps there never was a war at all), then why are there any humans (as avatars) in the matrix?
which raises another question i have. many of the "higher" programs (oracle, architect, seraph, merovingian etc.) "hang out" in the matrix? why? if the matrix was truly built as a place for humans to be mentally sustained, why would any self-respecting program be within the simulation? they'd have their own world (perhaps the "real world", or perhaps some other kind of simulation) in which to be. instead, the movie(s) present the matrix as not just a place to keep
human minds alive, but also as the environments in which many other kinds of programs live as well. this seems a little odd, and encourages the idea that neo is a program too.
why would the architect, for example, hang out in the matrix? the architect is presumably either a machine or software entity that built the system that runs the matrix, so why would it choose to descend into its creation and hang out there?
its also clear from reloaded and the revolutions trailer that seraph has an important role (witness the way he appeared to neo "as code" - he wasn't green, and as i recall was almost like a black hole, a space where code wasn't). what is he doing in the matrix?
sorry, but the number of context switches is not limited by the HZ setting. thats the maximum number that would occur if there were no blocked threads and no interrupts (except the system timer) causing threads to become runnable.
my system runs audio software that is generally powered by the audio interface interrupt, which occurs at about 1kHz. every single one of those interrupts generally leads to about 4 context switches in the typical case. thats about 4000 context switches per second.
LSA's biggest drawback is the project policy that software mixing should be done in userspace (presumably by a separate project)
This just is not true. ALSA now has the dmix plugin that handles software mixing in user space all by itself. Its very, very efficient and has no impact on latency (though it can't offer
JACK-style sample-synchronous execution). dmix makes regular software mixing "servers" irrelevant, and JACK fills the remaining needs.
you seem to be assuming that the audio is somehow connected to "the terminal". anyone creating software for music/audio production is working on a system in which audio has nothing to do with "the terminal". its delivered to a signal routing path that is completely external to the computer.
further more, and more basically, why should one API (X) cover input and output to entirely separate device classes? i have never seen any video adapters capable of handling sound, nor any audio interfaces capable of handling video.
if you write audio software, its just so incredibly obvious that Project 5 is just a repackaging of the same technology that powers CW's other s/w. its also nothing more than a copycat of reason. no momemtum there. kantos is interesting, but i've got csound patches (admittedly, frightening for a new user to even look at) that can do the same thing. i didn't see MindFX (though i did talk to angus). the gigastudio stuff - its also just a repackaging of their existing stuff as a plugin, and moreover, those guys have attempted to seriously fuck up s/w development by patenting read-ahead buffering for samples.
the point is that once you get the programming infrastructure in place and have access to Csound or some kind of max/pd tool for prototyping, you can crank out new apps like this once a month or even faster. we're nearly at that point. have you seen freqtweak or tapiir?
JACK
isn't a technology for creating new apps out of old ones. As you note, its a replacement for things like ReWire. But its a misconception that VSTi and DXi offer more integration than JACK. They don't. VSTi and DXi include MIDI right now, which JACK doesn't distribute, but will. JACK is about being able
to write VSTi's and DXi's without having to have them run in the process context of the host (though they can if you want to).
i was at NAMM, meeting with most of the companies there. i was totally unimpressed by just about every piece of "new release" software i saw. its all just band-aids and rewrappings of the same old stuff, slowly evolving toward more efficient user interface details. no revolutions there.
there is no momentum in the windows/macos worlds. they have evolved a certain design for audio/MIDI
software and are mining it as deep as they can.
but the new stuff is rare (melodyne), and
the infrastructure is only passable.
if your observations about experimental s/w were correct, it would be hard to explain why
most composition labs and experimental music labs
run unix/linux systems as the core of their working environment, and reserve windows/macos for the "standard stuff". i've visited most of the big computer music research facilities, and the programs you describe (except max/msp, maybe) are not high on their list of tools.
why the hell would you want to use overpriced
proprietary hardware that isn't even particularly good at what it does?
RME and others make decent multichannel hardware
without the ridiculous price gouging Digidesign is involved in.
Others of us are working on the software side.
and i'd like to point out that Mac OS X still does not support the configuration you describe (though Digidesign have announced PT for OS X, its not shipping yet).
JACK doesn't address internal mixdowns etc. My point was with JACK, its not necessary for synthesis engines to be a part of the HDR/sequencer. They don't have to even know that the other one exists. Ardour can record audio data from any JACK output port. v2.0 of Ardour
will function as the MIDI sequencer that drives
(for example) a JACK-enabled soft-synth.
I read "ACID Looping" as meaning "can use REX files". AFAIK, this has not been reverse engineered. I know how to implement the kind of sample decomposition that ACID does, but thats not useful if people can't use the many REX files that exist.
until less than one year ago, OMF was useless
as a medium of session exchange, and even to this day, going from ProTools to anything else generally doesn't work very well unless you buy extra software from Digidesign. thats why i'm not interested in OMF when the AES standard is so
close to release (and is based on OMF too).
in some ways we are behind the windows/macos world. in other ways, we're ahead. we have
vastly more experimental music tools than
those platforms do. we have license-free
inter-application audio routing available for
developers to use. you may also not be aware
of the groundswell of interest from vendors in linux. there are already versions of nuendo and cubase sx that run on linux, for example, and all future yamaha keyboards and music workstations will be based on embedded linux. i would not suggest that anyone could abandon tools they have grown used to on windows/macos, but we are moving much, much faster than the windows/macos worlds are and momentum is on our side. i think.
there is a significant difference between
the tax setup when you have a physical presence in a given state (as Toys R Us do in just about every state) and when you do not.
the proposed tax system would honor existing tax jurisdiction boundaries based on customer location. these jurisdictions do not follow
zip code or any other boundary that can be discerned from existing customer info. to support this properly requires
a set of a "tax jurisdiction" IDs and the user
has to supply one when placing the order.
Its worth noting that Yamaha (the music gear
maker, not the motorcycle maker) announced
recently that they would be using an embedded
version of linux for most of their keyboards
in the near future.
all this discussion of checksums and the like is
totally irrelevant. quite ignoring the fact that its the host that supplies the checksum (if its too be of any use in selecting potential downloads), its very unlikely that
any two renditions of the same audio file would be identical. CD-based digital audio is not a bit-for-bit perfect transfer medium (hence error correcting h/w and s/w in the drives). Rip a CD on two different drives and the chances that some bits will be different in the resulting files are really pretty good.
Checksumming only works if the assumption can be made that there is a single unique version of the file. That isn't true in the most common cases.
"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
it doesn't provide MIDI sequencing right now
because that would be a major diversion from
getting the audio side of things to at least as good as Nuendo, Sonar, CubaseSX and ProTools. if MIDI is important, then check out MusE, which is a similarly-rapidly improving MIDI sequencer
that has more limited audio capabilities than
Ardour.
there is a fairly good chance that i will be paid to add video frame viewing to ardour next year. not video editing - this is not a video editor, and i don't know any video people who would use any of the DAWs you mentioned for editing video either. but i agree that it will be a very desirable feature. MIDI sequencing comes first, however, and will benefit from a large amount of existing code that we intend to reuse from both MidiMountain and MusE.
as for the GUI issue: well, yes, lots of musicians think they want graphical interfaces, and programs like AMS and SpiralSynthModular and SpiralLoops and jMax and Pd are beginning to provide it to them. but there are lots of composers who find the limitations of most VSTi's (for example) rather frustrating, and there are also lots of musicians who enjoy tinkering in a way that GUI-centered applications don't always allow. so yes, we want more programs like Halion and Reaktor, but they don't replace tools like
Csound, they augment them.
can we agree on 2 years behind in many areas, 1 year in quite a few, and 1 year ahead in some?
ardour already has the infrastructure in place for everything you can imagine with audio, and will support BWF by the end of the day (OMF right now is a proprietary standard). it doesn't do MIDI and won't till v2.0, but its audio capabilities are at least as sophisticated as any of the DAW apps that you mention. no, its not a replacement yet, but it will be and pretty soon too.
LADSPA actually has more plugins available at this point than TDM, let alone HTDM, and more than MAS as well. The problem, if there is one, is that most of these are relatively simple plugins because the primary author (steve harris)
tends to focus on building blocks rather than
finished FX unit replacements.
In the synthesis arena, Linux lacks only for
graphically driven tools - stuff like Csound,
as complex as it is, is a lot more capable than
Reaktor, for example. Even here, with tools like
AMS and SpiralSynth, we are getting there.
so yes, your basic presmise is correct, but you phrase it so pessimistically that nobody would guess that we're about to catch up on windows/macos and move on to build a vastly more
flexible system. in particular, one not dominated by current fads.
The license allows the copyright holder to grant some rights to others, and also to take some away. The fact that the license is entered into voluntarily doesn't negate this fact; when you accept the terms of the GPL you are granted some new rights, but the license also strips some of your existing rights.
The license does not permit the removal of rights from the grantee. Before the license is issued, the would-be grantee has no rights except for fair use. After the license is issue, the grantee has rights to use a copyright work subject to
conditions imposed by the grantor.
If the grantee believes that her rights have
been removed because they now have to release
their own derivative work under the GPL, they
have a very simple remedy: stop using the
original copyright work. I don't think that you
could find a court in the country, including the court of public opinion, that would hold that
me giving you use of my copyright work in exchange for an agreement from you that you release your own work in the same way has "stripped away some rights". You have gained a new right, and agreed to follow certain practices. If you change your mind about that agreement, you lose the new right i gave you, but there nothing is nothing i can do to stop
you from backing out of the agreement. its just that when you do, you have no rights (except fair use) to my copyright work in any way. your choice.
Let's say that I publish a scholarly essay in which I quote from another work without permission (under fair use). Then I later rewrite the essay as a novella, without using the quote. Are you saying that the author of the quote could somehow block publication of my novella?BS.
if you write a program in which you use GPL'ed code in an unpermitted fashion, you are free to remove the GPL'ed code from your program, and
continue to sell/distribute it, as long as your own work is not a derivative, which may require a court to decide upon.
just as fair use permits quoting under certain specific conditions, the GPL allows you to use existing work under certain specific conditions. If you don't follow the conditions, you can't use the work. its very simple.
you seem to be under the misapprehension that
the GPL can force you to adopt the GPL for your own work. it cannot. all it does is force you to use the GPL for your work IF AND ONLY IF you choose to use work by another person licensed under the GPL. if you do not use such work, or you cease using such work in a way that leaves
your own work as a non-derivative, then you are under no obligation to use the GPL for your own work. the author made a trade with you: their work under the GPL in exchange for your work
under the GPL. you don't like it? then don't use their work.
Another absurd statement, but I digress. "Rights" is such a loaded word; it makes laws sound like unalienable laws. Copyright gives certain "rights" to the author at the expense of the consumer. The GPL takes away some of those rights from the author and gives them to the consumer. There is always a conservation of rights. If society gives you the "right" not to be murdered, it impinges on my "right" to murder you. Our perception of which laws are "rights" is coloured by our nature and nurture; there are no absolute rights.
Another absurd troll. Copyright law removes more or less all rights on the part of
anyone except the copyright holder. A license is a way for the copyright holder to grant some
rights to others. It is their choice which rights they wish to grant and under what terms. If they decide to use the GPL, then they are issuing you with various rights in exchange for your agreement to use the GPL in any work you do that is related to their work in some specific, enumerated ways. If you don't wish to follow this agreement, they transfer no rights to you, and you may not legally use their work at all. If you do agree to their
agreement, then you can use their work. The GPL hasn't given or taken or away any rights - the copyright holder has used the GPL to detail under what terms you have permission to use their work in ways that would otherwise violate copyright law. The copyright holder giveth, the copyright holder taketh away - thats the law. The GPL is just a particular codification of their conditions for you having some rights to their work.
Dude, you are completely full of shit. Copyright law is a little bit viral, but the GPL is ebola viral. The major difference is that if you include a copyrighted image/paragraph/etc in your original work (whether by permission or via fair use) the copyright on the cited work does not infect the remaining 90% of your original work. How can you gloss over a detail like that. It makes ALL the difference.
Who's full of shit here? You would be able to
reprint/reissue your work without the copied work, but until you did that, continued duplication of your work would be a violation of copyright law (and you would remain in violation of it for the prior duplication).
Get a sense of proportion. There is a huge difference between someone who wants to take a GPL'ed app, tweak it a bit, and sell it under a non-GPL license, and someone who wants to take a GPL'ed library and include it as a small part of a non-GPL'ed program. That would be stretching the definition of "derivative work" beyond the level of common sense.
If someone's work is copyrighted then you have
no rights whatsoever to duplicate or use it
unless they give you such rights. The author of the GPL'ed library has decided to give such rights only to people who give her and others
the same rights in return. The author could
have chosen to give you no rights whatsoever,
in which case, they need not bother with a
license at all. When you use somebody else's code, whatever license it is under, it is only legal if they have given express permission to do so. If they have not, or if they have added conditions under which you may use it, the law does not permit you wriggle out of this with lines like "get a sense of proportion."
Again, you're full of shit. Each of the excerpts is covered by its own copyright; they aren't infecting each other. If you take some excerpts from Tom Clancy and mix them in with some quotes from Charles Dickens, it doesn't mean that Tom Clancy gets copyright over the Dickens quotes, nor does the public domain status of the Dickens quotes cause the Clancy quotes to fall into the public domain. *THAT* would be viral licensing, and that's what the GPL does.
You need to be careful with that "shit" term. You are right about the lack of "transfer of copyright" in the domain of the printed word. But the same thing applies to software too. The GPL cannot cause transfer of copyright between owners. If there is an existing body of GPL'ed source code and it is merged with or used to derive new source code, the exact same rules apply as they would with books: genuinely new work is copyright the new author, quoted work is copyright of the old author. The point is: without a license of some sort, you have NO permission to use the existing work in any way, not to copy, not to quote, not to use to derive new work from. If the work was GPL'ed, the author has given you permission to use it as you wish, as long as you use the same license for your own work. The author has no copyright claim on your own original work whatsoever. You are free to issue work that is entirely your own under any license you wish. Work that is derived from the original work (and "derived" here is a technical term that may include compile time linkage, but never includes run time execution) is controlled by the copyright holder of the original work. the copyright holder may choose to prohibit you from using HER work unless you choose a certain license. If you don't agree with that, then you have no permission to use her work; if you do so anyway, you are in violation not of the GPL, but of US and international copyright law.
a much better solution is to use a generic callback system such as SigC++. this allows completely
anonymous notification by the Model of changes.
any number of Views can attach themselves
to the "signals" "emitted" by the Model - the Model has no idea how many (if any) other objects are interested in its state. it just "emits" a "signal" saying "i've changed" or "i've changed in this particular way", and everybody who cares about it gets to hear about it. its much, much, much easier to do this in languages with template implementations like C++ than in those that don't.
Slashdot Mirror
i think you mean that in aggregate the top earning 1% make 11 times more than the lowest earning 50%, but only play 9 times more in taxes. the way you had written it out makes no sense.
linux doesn't only ship with a timeshare scheduler. it includes both the SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR schedulers, which provide close-to-real-time scheduling capabilities. most pro apps in the audio realm use one or both of these. they can both be used alongside the SCHED_OTHER ("timeshare") scheduler.
what would be more interesting would be CPU cycle reservation, which is already present in OS X, and would be very useful for any streaming media software.
it doesn't matter who built the machines. why would there be any humans left? why would there be any actual zion at all? if neo is a program, why isn't everything else a program too? the question seems to hinge on whether the claim about humans being farmed is true or not. if its true, then the presence of human avatars in the matrix makes sense. but if that story is not true (and perhaps there never was a war at all), then why are there any humans (as avatars) in the matrix?
which raises another question i have. many of the "higher" programs (oracle, architect, seraph, merovingian etc.) "hang out" in the matrix? why? if the matrix was truly built as a place for humans to be mentally sustained, why would any self-respecting program be within the simulation? they'd have their own world (perhaps the "real world", or perhaps some other kind of simulation) in which to be. instead, the movie(s) present the matrix as not just a place to keep human minds alive, but also as the environments in which many other kinds of programs live as well. this seems a little odd, and encourages the idea that neo is a program too.why would the architect, for example, hang out in the matrix? the architect is presumably either a machine or software entity that built the system that runs the matrix, so why would it choose to descend into its creation and hang out there?
its also clear from reloaded and the revolutions trailer that seraph has an important role (witness the way he appeared to neo "as code" - he wasn't green, and as i recall was almost like a black hole, a space where code wasn't). what is he doing in the matrix?
why would there be humans at all? why believe that any part of the story about the matrix is true?
sorry, but the number of context switches is not limited by the HZ setting. thats the maximum number that would occur if there were no blocked threads and no interrupts (except the system timer) causing threads to become runnable.
my system runs audio software that is generally powered by the audio interface interrupt, which occurs at about 1kHz. every single one of those interrupts generally leads to about 4 context switches in the typical case. thats about 4000 context switches per second.
LSA's biggest drawback is the project policy that software mixing should be done in userspace (presumably by a separate project)
This just is not true. ALSA now has the dmix plugin that handles software mixing in user space all by itself. Its very, very efficient and has no impact on latency (though it can't offer JACK-style sample-synchronous execution). dmix makes regular software mixing "servers" irrelevant, and JACK fills the remaining needs.
you seem to be assuming that the audio is somehow connected to "the terminal". anyone creating software for music/audio production is working on a system in which audio has nothing to do with "the terminal". its delivered to a signal routing path that is completely external to the computer.
further more, and more basically, why should one API (X) cover input and output to entirely separate device classes? i have never seen any video adapters capable of handling sound, nor any audio interfaces capable of handling video.
if you write audio software, its just so incredibly obvious that Project 5 is just a repackaging of the same technology that powers CW's other s/w. its also nothing more than a copycat of reason. no momemtum there. kantos is interesting, but i've got csound patches (admittedly, frightening for a new user to even look at) that can do the same thing. i didn't see MindFX (though i did talk to angus). the gigastudio stuff - its also just a repackaging of their existing stuff as a plugin, and moreover, those guys have attempted to seriously fuck up s/w development by patenting read-ahead buffering for samples.
the point is that once you get the programming infrastructure in place and have access to Csound or some kind of max/pd tool for prototyping, you can crank out new apps like this once a month or even faster. we're nearly at that point. have you seen freqtweak or tapiir?
JACK isn't a technology for creating new apps out of old ones. As you note, its a replacement for things like ReWire. But its a misconception that VSTi and DXi offer more integration than JACK. They don't. VSTi and DXi include MIDI right now, which JACK doesn't distribute, but will. JACK is about being able to write VSTi's and DXi's without having to have them run in the process context of the host (though they can if you want to).
i was at NAMM, meeting with most of the companies there. i was totally unimpressed by just about every piece of "new release" software i saw. its all just band-aids and rewrappings of the same old stuff, slowly evolving toward more efficient user interface details. no revolutions there.
there is no momentum in the windows/macos worlds. they have evolved a certain design for audio/MIDI software and are mining it as deep as they can. but the new stuff is rare (melodyne), and the infrastructure is only passable.
if your observations about experimental s/w were correct, it would be hard to explain why most composition labs and experimental music labs run unix/linux systems as the core of their working environment, and reserve windows/macos for the "standard stuff". i've visited most of the big computer music research facilities, and the programs you describe (except max/msp, maybe) are not high on their list of tools.
why the hell would you want to use overpriced proprietary hardware that isn't even particularly good at what it does?
RME and others make decent multichannel hardware without the ridiculous price gouging Digidesign is involved in.
Others of us are working on the software side.
and i'd like to point out that Mac OS X still does not support the configuration you describe (though Digidesign have announced PT for OS X, its not shipping yet).
JACK doesn't address internal mixdowns etc. My point was with JACK, its not necessary for synthesis engines to be a part of the HDR/sequencer. They don't have to even know that the other one exists. Ardour can record audio data from any JACK output port. v2.0 of Ardour will function as the MIDI sequencer that drives (for example) a JACK-enabled soft-synth.
I read "ACID Looping" as meaning "can use REX files". AFAIK, this has not been reverse engineered. I know how to implement the kind of sample decomposition that ACID does, but thats not useful if people can't use the many REX files that exist.
until less than one year ago, OMF was useless as a medium of session exchange, and even to this day, going from ProTools to anything else generally doesn't work very well unless you buy extra software from Digidesign. thats why i'm not interested in OMF when the AES standard is so close to release (and is based on OMF too).
in some ways we are behind the windows/macos world. in other ways, we're ahead. we have vastly more experimental music tools than those platforms do. we have license-free inter-application audio routing available for developers to use. you may also not be aware of the groundswell of interest from vendors in linux. there are already versions of nuendo and cubase sx that run on linux, for example, and all future yamaha keyboards and music workstations will be based on embedded linux. i would not suggest that anyone could abandon tools they have grown used to on windows/macos, but we are moving much, much faster than the windows/macos worlds are and momentum is on our side. i think.
ignoring the MIDI sequencing side, what do you
think Ardour doesn't do that Pro Audio 9 does?
there is a significant difference between the tax setup when you have a physical presence in a given state (as Toys R Us do in just about every state) and when you do not.
the proposed tax system would honor existing tax jurisdiction boundaries based on customer location. these jurisdictions do not follow zip code or any other boundary that can be discerned from existing customer info. to support this properly requires a set of a "tax jurisdiction" IDs and the user has to supply one when placing the order.
Its worth noting that Yamaha (the music gear maker, not the motorcycle maker) announced recently that they would be using an embedded version of linux for most of their keyboards in the near future.
all this discussion of checksums and the like is totally irrelevant. quite ignoring the fact that its the host that supplies the checksum (if its too be of any use in selecting potential downloads), its very unlikely that any two renditions of the same audio file would be identical. CD-based digital audio is not a bit-for-bit perfect transfer medium (hence error correcting h/w and s/w in the drives). Rip a CD on two different drives and the chances that some bits will be different in the resulting files are really pretty good.
Checksumming only works if the assumption can be made that there is a single unique version of the file. That isn't true in the most common cases.
"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
ardour is not just a recorder. it supports:
- full MMC control
- full MTC master or slave
- automation
- per-region and per-track gain envelopes
it doesn't provide MIDI sequencing right now because that would be a major diversion from getting the audio side of things to at least as good as Nuendo, Sonar, CubaseSX and ProTools. if MIDI is important, then check out MusE, which is a similarly-rapidly improving MIDI sequencer that has more limited audio capabilities than Ardour.there is a fairly good chance that i will be paid to add video frame viewing to ardour next year. not video editing - this is not a video editor, and i don't know any video people who would use any of the DAWs you mentioned for editing video either. but i agree that it will be a very desirable feature. MIDI sequencing comes first, however, and will benefit from a large amount of existing code that we intend to reuse from both MidiMountain and MusE.
as for the GUI issue: well, yes, lots of musicians think they want graphical interfaces, and programs like AMS and SpiralSynthModular and SpiralLoops and jMax and Pd are beginning to provide it to them. but there are lots of composers who find the limitations of most VSTi's (for example) rather frustrating, and there are also lots of musicians who enjoy tinkering in a way that GUI-centered applications don't always allow. so yes, we want more programs like Halion and Reaktor, but they don't replace tools like Csound, they augment them.
can we agree on 2 years behind in many areas, 1 year in quite a few, and 1 year ahead in some?
ardour already has the infrastructure in place for everything you can imagine with audio, and will support BWF by the end of the day (OMF right now is a proprietary standard). it doesn't do MIDI and won't till v2.0, but its audio capabilities are at least as sophisticated as any of the DAW apps that you mention. no, its not a replacement yet, but it will be and pretty soon too.
LADSPA actually has more plugins available at this point than TDM, let alone HTDM, and more than MAS as well. The problem, if there is one, is that most of these are relatively simple plugins because the primary author (steve harris) tends to focus on building blocks rather than finished FX unit replacements.
In the synthesis arena, Linux lacks only for graphically driven tools - stuff like Csound, as complex as it is, is a lot more capable than Reaktor, for example. Even here, with tools like AMS and SpiralSynth, we are getting there.
so yes, your basic presmise is correct, but you phrase it so pessimistically that nobody would guess that we're about to catch up on windows/macos and move on to build a vastly more flexible system. in particular, one not dominated by current fads.
The license allows the copyright holder to grant some rights to others, and also to take some away. The fact that the license is entered into voluntarily doesn't negate this fact; when you accept the terms of the GPL you are granted some new rights, but the license also strips some of your existing rights.
The license does not permit the removal of rights from the grantee. Before the license is issued, the would-be grantee has no rights except for fair use. After the license is issue, the grantee has rights to use a copyright work subject to conditions imposed by the grantor.
If the grantee believes that her rights have been removed because they now have to release their own derivative work under the GPL, they have a very simple remedy: stop using the original copyright work. I don't think that you could find a court in the country, including the court of public opinion, that would hold that me giving you use of my copyright work in exchange for an agreement from you that you release your own work in the same way has "stripped away some rights". You have gained a new right, and agreed to follow certain practices. If you change your mind about that agreement, you lose the new right i gave you, but there nothing is nothing i can do to stop you from backing out of the agreement. its just that when you do, you have no rights (except fair use) to my copyright work in any way. your choice.
Let's say that I publish a scholarly essay in which I quote from another work without permission (under fair use). Then I later rewrite the essay as a novella, without using the quote. Are you saying that the author of the quote could somehow block publication of my novella?BS.
if you write a program in which you use GPL'ed code in an unpermitted fashion, you are free to remove the GPL'ed code from your program, and continue to sell/distribute it, as long as your own work is not a derivative, which may require a court to decide upon.
just as fair use permits quoting under certain specific conditions, the GPL allows you to use existing work under certain specific conditions. If you don't follow the conditions, you can't use the work. its very simple.
you seem to be under the misapprehension that the GPL can force you to adopt the GPL for your own work. it cannot. all it does is force you to use the GPL for your work IF AND ONLY IF you choose to use work by another person licensed under the GPL. if you do not use such work, or you cease using such work in a way that leaves your own work as a non-derivative, then you are under no obligation to use the GPL for your own work. the author made a trade with you: their work under the GPL in exchange for your work under the GPL. you don't like it? then don't use their work.
Another absurd statement, but I digress. "Rights" is such a loaded word; it makes laws sound like unalienable laws. Copyright gives certain "rights" to the author at the expense of the consumer. The GPL takes away some of those rights from the author and gives them to the consumer. There is always a conservation of rights. If society gives you the "right" not to be murdered, it impinges on my "right" to murder you. Our perception of which laws are "rights" is coloured by our nature and nurture; there are no absolute rights.
Another absurd troll. Copyright law removes more or less all rights on the part of anyone except the copyright holder. A license is a way for the copyright holder to grant some rights to others. It is their choice which rights they wish to grant and under what terms. If they decide to use the GPL, then they are issuing you with various rights in exchange for your agreement to use the GPL in any work you do that is related to their work in some specific, enumerated ways. If you don't wish to follow this agreement, they transfer no rights to you, and you may not legally use their work at all. If you do agree to their agreement, then you can use their work. The GPL hasn't given or taken or away any rights - the copyright holder has used the GPL to detail under what terms you have permission to use their work in ways that would otherwise violate copyright law. The copyright holder giveth, the copyright holder taketh away - thats the law. The GPL is just a particular codification of their conditions for you having some rights to their work.
Dude, you are completely full of shit. Copyright law is a little bit viral, but the GPL is ebola viral. The major difference is that if you include a copyrighted image/paragraph/etc in your original work (whether by permission or via fair use) the copyright on the cited work does not infect the remaining 90% of your original work. How can you gloss over a detail like that. It makes ALL the difference.
Who's full of shit here? You would be able to reprint/reissue your work without the copied work, but until you did that, continued duplication of your work would be a violation of copyright law (and you would remain in violation of it for the prior duplication).
Get a sense of proportion. There is a huge difference between someone who wants to take a GPL'ed app, tweak it a bit, and sell it under a non-GPL license, and someone who wants to take a GPL'ed library and include it as a small part of a non-GPL'ed program. That would be stretching the definition of "derivative work" beyond the level of common sense.
If someone's work is copyrighted then you have no rights whatsoever to duplicate or use it unless they give you such rights. The author of the GPL'ed library has decided to give such rights only to people who give her and others the same rights in return. The author could have chosen to give you no rights whatsoever, in which case, they need not bother with a license at all. When you use somebody else's code, whatever license it is under, it is only legal if they have given express permission to do so. If they have not, or if they have added conditions under which you may use it, the law does not permit you wriggle out of this with lines like "get a sense of proportion."Again, you're full of shit. Each of the excerpts is covered by its own copyright; they aren't infecting each other. If you take some excerpts from Tom Clancy and mix them in with some quotes from Charles Dickens, it doesn't mean that Tom Clancy gets copyright over the Dickens quotes, nor does the public domain status of the Dickens quotes cause the Clancy quotes to fall into the public domain. *THAT* would be viral licensing, and that's what the GPL does.
You need to be careful with that "shit" term. You are right about the lack of "transfer of copyright" in the domain of the printed word. But the same thing applies to software too. The GPL cannot cause transfer of copyright between owners. If there is an existing body of GPL'ed source code and it is merged with or used to derive new source code, the exact same rules apply as they would with books: genuinely new work is copyright the new author, quoted work is copyright of the old author. The point is: without a license of some sort, you have NO permission to use the existing work in any way, not to copy, not to quote, not to use to derive new work from. If the work was GPL'ed, the author has given you permission to use it as you wish, as long as you use the same license for your own work. The author has no copyright claim on your own original work whatsoever. You are free to issue work that is entirely your own under any license you wish. Work that is derived from the original work (and "derived" here is a technical term that may include compile time linkage, but never includes run time execution) is controlled by the copyright holder of the original work. the copyright holder may choose to prohibit you from using HER work unless you choose a certain license. If you don't agree with that, then you have no permission to use her work; if you do so anyway, you are in violation not of the GPL, but of US and international copyright law.
a much better solution is to use a generic callback system such as SigC++. this allows completely anonymous notification by the Model of changes. any number of Views can attach themselves to the "signals" "emitted" by the Model - the Model has no idea how many (if any) other objects are interested in its state. it just "emits" a "signal" saying "i've changed" or "i've changed in this particular way", and everybody who cares about it gets to hear about it. its much, much, much easier to do this in languages with template implementations like C++ than in those that don't.