Has anyone actually tried this? Most of the comments seem to be about the licensing or the ui, i'm just curious how this holds up to ardour. This actually looks pretty awesome.
I've tried using it but it crashes too often and is generally too buggy to use. It seems to be in an early stage of development so this is to be expected. The UI and general workflow look very promising though, in particular the piano roll. It has a long way to go to match the maturity and features of Ardour, but the UI design that it's aiming for will make it more suitable for people making EDM.
FWIW, the original versions of Ardour were "extensible in Guile" too. The entire program (well, the GUI) ran inside the interpreter's REPL. We ripped that our before v2 came out. These days, we use Lua.
Whenever I see something like this, my first question is, wow what a beautiful cross-platform UI -- I wonder what they are using?
It's amazing how challenging it is in 2020 to have a simple path for creating a cross-platform UI that actually looks good and is not aimed at developers as users, but rather competes with the polish of established applications. Unless you go with Electron or pay thousands per year for a Qt license, options are quite limited.
Why does everyone keep repeating the "pay for a Qt license" meme every time that someone presents a Qt software? You do not need to pay for a Qt license, it is under lgpl, just like a lot of other libraries that you can use in both foss and non-foss applications. Even GTK which some replies suggested uses the LGPL! Same goes for glibc which you link all of your programs to.
Content production tools have fairly unique UI needs compared to the average desktop application, e.g. they often have very complex timeline controls that offer dozens if not hundreds of different interactions specific to the tool at hand. Generic UI libraries would only be a hindrance there. They almost never have enough screen space, so the widget/interaction density is far greater than what’d be ergonomic for standard apps. Since people spend considerable time learning these tools they generally have their own UI paradigms independent of the host OS, which is the opposite of what you‘d want in a crossplatform toolkit.
Same with modern ZynAddSubFX. I personally have no issues with this model, I'd rather pay for libre software then equivalent proprietary. That being said, if I were to try using this I would probably build it.
They just have a very (over)zealous locale detection system that tries to show you a language localized page based on your browser's language priority.
Addendum: since this is getting downvoted, probably because I didn't explain why this matters beyond philosophical arguments, read my reply down the thread for why the license means in practice I can't use this DAW as a live plug-in host (without a huge hassle). There's a practical concern for you. One that doesn't apply to most proprietary applications, it's very unique to the AGPL.
This looks good, I've been making music with Ardour lately and this has a few features I wish Ardour did.
But - too bad it's not free software. It's unfortunately licensed under an EULA, the GNU AGPLv3 - which, as much as the FSF would like you to believe otherwise, is not a Free Software license, as it violates Freedom 0, your right to use/run the software however you wish without conditions. The AGPL imposes requirements not only on people who distribute the software (like a simple copyright license, e.g. the GPLs, BSD, Apache, etc), but also on people who merely use it (it requires you to make the source code available to anyone who even uses the software indirectly, e.g. as a service).
So I might use if it's good, but I won't be contributing patches to it, as I would with other software like Ardour, and I won't use it in a live setting. I can't in good conscience spend my free time contributing to software behind a EULA.
(I haven't the foggiest clue why they picked this license either; its main purpose is to extend the GPL's virality to network services to the detriment of user freedom, but this isn't a network service.)
This reads more like a general diatribe against AGPLv3 than a critique of the program.
I don't like GPL licenses myself, I prefer BSD/MIT/etc.
But that aside, this has very little to do with this program, and it very little (if any) impediment to using this kind of program.
It might prevent a company from building a commercial closed source version (which is fine, we have plenty of commercial DAWs already), and it might prevent a company from somehow turning this into SaaS. Both of those seem like very remote and unlike possibilities, even if this was non GPLv3.
To me free usage of the software means I can use a piece of software in any fashion I use for any purpose I use it. I cannot understand how the requirement to share your modifications prevents any lawful or reasonable use.
Most end users don't modify their software after all.
The sole and only wrinkle is that a requirement to share your code may in some instances keep you from adding some secret sauce to the software, using it to derive profit, and not sharing it with the party that created 99% of the value by providing you the software in the first place. Which seems to be literally complaining that it works as intended.
If we accept the premise of copyright and licensing software in the first place I'm not sure where you derive the justification for complaining that they are merely interested in giving you some rights to their efforts and not others. After all they could give you none. Regarding existing free software you already can't take GPL software and make it part of your AGPL software. The kind of software that can be incorporated in AGPL software is software that is allowed by license to be incorporated with software that adds additional restrictions like BSD licensed software.
Many would term that "more free" but would somehow manage to differentiate between taking "more free" software and using it to build proprietary software that gives downstream no privileges and taking "more free" software and using it to build software with restrictions that gives some privileges and somehow find the latter wanting.
[+] [-] grawprog|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] backlash875|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulDavisThe1st|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pindab0ter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellofunk|5 years ago|reply
It's amazing how challenging it is in 2020 to have a simple path for creating a cross-platform UI that actually looks good and is not aimed at developers as users, but rather competes with the polish of established applications. Unless you go with Electron or pay thousands per year for a Qt license, options are quite limited.
[+] [-] dependenttypes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] formerly_proven|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weeber|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://git.zrythm.org/cgit/zrythm/tree/README.md#n22
[+] [-] chrisseaton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nokinside|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krn|5 years ago|reply
I might be wrong, but it seems that Bitwig Studio, probably the most popular cross-platform DAW, uses JavaFX for the UI.
[+] [-] slezyr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majkinetor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shared404|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slezyr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aasasd|5 years ago|reply
Automagic redirect wasn't such a good idea here.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mxmilkb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmoreno|5 years ago|reply
Is there any resource about this Guile extensibility?
[+] [-] coldpie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] memming|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slezyr|5 years ago|reply
> Alexandros Theodotou
> I am a native-level English and Greek speaker born in Cyprus, currently based in the UK.
Where did Korean developers came from?
[+] [-] jabbany|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcan_42|5 years ago|reply
This looks good, I've been making music with Ardour lately and this has a few features I wish Ardour did.
But - too bad it's not free software. It's unfortunately licensed under an EULA, the GNU AGPLv3 - which, as much as the FSF would like you to believe otherwise, is not a Free Software license, as it violates Freedom 0, your right to use/run the software however you wish without conditions. The AGPL imposes requirements not only on people who distribute the software (like a simple copyright license, e.g. the GPLs, BSD, Apache, etc), but also on people who merely use it (it requires you to make the source code available to anyone who even uses the software indirectly, e.g. as a service).
So I might use if it's good, but I won't be contributing patches to it, as I would with other software like Ardour, and I won't use it in a live setting. I can't in good conscience spend my free time contributing to software behind a EULA.
(I haven't the foggiest clue why they picked this license either; its main purpose is to extend the GPL's virality to network services to the detriment of user freedom, but this isn't a network service.)
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
I don't like GPL licenses myself, I prefer BSD/MIT/etc.
But that aside, this has very little to do with this program, and it very little (if any) impediment to using this kind of program.
It might prevent a company from building a commercial closed source version (which is fine, we have plenty of commercial DAWs already), and it might prevent a company from somehow turning this into SaaS. Both of those seem like very remote and unlike possibilities, even if this was non GPLv3.
[+] [-] michaelmrose|5 years ago|reply
Most end users don't modify their software after all.
The sole and only wrinkle is that a requirement to share your code may in some instances keep you from adding some secret sauce to the software, using it to derive profit, and not sharing it with the party that created 99% of the value by providing you the software in the first place. Which seems to be literally complaining that it works as intended.
If we accept the premise of copyright and licensing software in the first place I'm not sure where you derive the justification for complaining that they are merely interested in giving you some rights to their efforts and not others. After all they could give you none. Regarding existing free software you already can't take GPL software and make it part of your AGPL software. The kind of software that can be incorporated in AGPL software is software that is allowed by license to be incorporated with software that adds additional restrictions like BSD licensed software.
Many would term that "more free" but would somehow manage to differentiate between taking "more free" software and using it to build proprietary software that gives downstream no privileges and taking "more free" software and using it to build software with restrictions that gives some privileges and somehow find the latter wanting.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]