Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #18261
| From | An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| References | <ip2jde$3j9$1@dont-email.me> <cs1mtqrk0cbf$.zdtwgyatgllr$.dlg@40tude.net> <pan.2011.04.25.02.52.39@friend.com.invalid> <1xydlm81p3p8k.g7lzbvu6lnnc.dlg@40tude.net> |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.04.25.03.54.17@friend.com.invalid> (permalink) |
| Date | 2011-04-25 05:54 +0100 |
| Organization | X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org |
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:19:09 -0400, flatfish+++ chiseled 1xydlm81p3p8k.g7lzbvu6lnnc.dlg@40tude.net in stone using Trajan: > On 25 Apr 2011 04:52:47 +0100, An Old Friend wrote: > > >> Well, personally, I'm not going to play netnanny to every poster in >> COLA. It seems like there's plenty of verification. > > It goes way beyond net nanny. > Take 7 for example, please.... His "Inventor of the Year" claim reminds me of the many web awards that were out in the mid-late 1990s--lots of them out there, some sounded great, but the quantity of them diluted their value greatly. If he got the award, that's great. If he didn't, then shame on him for trying to fool people. I wouldn't make up getting an award, especially if it were an award that could be easily verified. (You won't see me claiming that I've won any Grammys or Dove awards.) >> I try to avoid making claims that my data is *the* only data. I talk >> about my experiences. And yes, those experiences are colored with my >> biases, as is everyone's to some degree. I've said before that I have >> no great love for Microsoft, and I've made jokes about certain >> stereotypes of Microsoft. There are also jokes about Apple users and >> about Linux users. > > Nothing wrong with poking a little fun here and there. > >> When someone says, "that can't be done in Microsoft" or "that can't be >> done in Linux," I feel (in most cases) those people are full of it. > > It depends and usually it boils down to what the user expects. Let's > face it most users don't even scratch the surface of what MSOffice is > capable of. > > >> Exceptions are if they're speaking about VERY specific software or >> situations (like supercomputer use or having a 100% binary-compatible >> Microsoft Office or speaking about OS-specific utilities that are not >> available in the other operating systems). > > Portable devices are a classic example. People use these things. They > want to sync, they want to update the unit etc. > Linux has a dismal track record of supporting devices like that and even > when they do, it's usually as a mass storage device which means it's up > to the user to figure out what files are where and so forth. > > Hardly something average Jayne wants to do. Rhythmbox and Ubuntu 10.10 sync up fine to my iPhone; no problems. >> Take the statement "professional quality recording can't be done in >> Linux." > > Now you're twisting things in the same way HPT does. > > I never said professional recording can't be done in Linux. I said > professionals don't use Linux for recording, for the most part. Yes, if > you look hard enough you will find someone, somewhere doing it and > that's fine but it's the exception, not the rule. My mistake. I had understood what you were saying as something other than what you had intended. > Walk into virtually any commercial studio on earth and you will find > Protools, Nuendo, Logic etc. > You will NOT find Linux. > > All those programs are very expensive so there must be a reason why the > studios don't want to save money and use Linux. > > I know the reason and so do you. > >> I'm fairly sure that's not a true statement, even though software such >> as ProTools is not available for Linux. People created professional >> quality recordings long before ProTools became a standard, and people >> can make professional quality recordings without using ProTools today: >> a 24 track analog recording studio can still produce excellent >> professional results, no matter how outdated that technology seems >> today. One would obviously have to make adjustments in their method of >> production using something other than ProTools, but I'm confident >> quality recordings can be made in Linux. > > They can, but why would you want to? > The Beatles used a 4 track to record Sgt. Pepper. It's a masterpiece. That's always the standard I held myself to when I did stuff on my first Yamaha MT1X. > You can set up a desk, plug in 24 mics and record right into Ardour and > it will sound every bit as good as if you did it with Protools. > > So now what? > > Say the drummer was off a little can you replace his performance with > some well recorded drum samples? The drum samples aren't in some linux-unreadable audio format, are they? If they're WAV or AIFF files, it shouldn't be any more of a hassle than it would be with other DAWs. > How about mixing and mastering the recording? What kind of tools does > Linux offer compared to Protools or really Windows/OSX DAW software in > general? > > Linux isn't even in the same ball park and THAT is the problem. I agree the tools are different. I'm exploring them now, but haven't made a final verdict. I come from using Logic, and I'm aware of the things you're talking about. > Sure if you are making "beatz" or trance "music" like Marti makes then > Linux might be the just the thing. > Or if you happen to have a room and performers that are perfect and no > FX are needed after the tracking session, fine, Linux might be just the > thing. > > Professional recordings can be made with 2 mics and a decent cassette > deck using Dolby S. > The point is these days you are not going to find that as the norm. > > Contrary to popular belief, recording studios and engineers are not > getting rich tracking sessions these days. > > Every dime spent counts. It's always been that way. > If Linux were a viable option it would be replacing the commercial > software by the boat load. > And engineers are very familiar with Linux so it's not a case of not > knowing. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just haven't put Linux to pasture yet. If I got a film scoring gig tomorrow, I'd go back to Logic because I'm familiar with it and know what results I can get. (I'm comfortable enough now with Lilypond and MuseScore to do my engraving with them instead of Finale). In a year or so, I'll try my hand at rescoring a movie I did, but using Ardour. I'll be ready then after really going through Ardour's interface so I can do the score promptly (as if I were being paid again to do it), and hopefully the software will have improved so that what I do can be a proof-of-concept: a demo of the capabilities of the software.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 21:39 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 21:54 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 04:52 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 23:19 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 05:54 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 00:20 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 11:11 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:19 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:50 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:45 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:20 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:27 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-26 05:16 +0000
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:49 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:20 +0100
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 15:46 -0400
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 22:10 +0200
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 16:15 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:17 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-25 17:54 +0000
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:17 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:42 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 09:01 -0500
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:24 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 22:21 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 22:34 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 22:52 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 22:54 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 14:50 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-25 15:51 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:13 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 11:16 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:25 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 17:28 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2011-04-25 21:59 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:59 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:24 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:30 -0500
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:33 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:55 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:03 -0700
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 17:23 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-25 12:28 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:39 -0700
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 12:14 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Clog_-_wog (®) <clog_-_wog@anonimous.eu> - 2011-04-25 22:04 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 11:43 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 08:58 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:01 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:09 -0700
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:22 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:02 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-25 11:04 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:33 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:48 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:55 -0700
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 13:19 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 12:48 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:09 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 13:20 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 17:32 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 19:59 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:29 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-26 15:40 +0100
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 11:28 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:17 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:29 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 13:36 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 12:12 -0400
Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be brainless twits Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-25 19:28 +0100
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:38 -0400
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 13:50 -0500
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-25 22:59 +0100
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 18:51 -0400
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:43 -0500
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:40 -0500
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-26 16:41 +0100
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 11:37 -0400
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:50 -0700
csiph-web