What do you think about this project?

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Postby thamarok » 2006-11-11 20:15

Some good news: The Linux Music Studio Core is finished! Now I'll have to make a GUI and make some more additions to the core.

As I am making the core ready, could someone give me guides or references on how to output a sine wave in Linux? I know there is sourcecode for this even in assembly, but mostly for Windows. I don't care if it's in C++ or whatever, if I can compile it into a .so file then everything is good.

A little idea I have in my head: The sequencer will be free (as in freedom) and some synths will also be free (as in freedom), but for the user to be able to make delicious music, he/she has to buy more synths in order to bake a tasty cake. What do you think?
The free synths would be a simple drum machine, a guitar, a piano and a oscillator synth.
In the commercial synths there would be a more advanced drum machine with more presets, effects, up to 100 different syles and sounds (from jazz till metal). And then a more advanced guitar synth, again with the same features as the above advanced drum machine. Then there will be some special synths, like a TB-303 synth, a retro 8-bit sound synth and more..

On the other hand, I am having the VST core as the most important priority. Because if I have a very stable VST wrapper, I think more Linux users will make hard-core music with real synths in VST format.

I think I can succeed now :)
I have a good knowledge about sound outputs, DSP's and other stuff. So if I just would know how a sine wave would be outputted, I think I could start making the audio core.

Thanks for everyone for comments!
thamarok
 

Postby PingFloyd » 2006-11-16 16:13

Here's an idea for what it's worth:

You talk about possible ways to make money. I can appreciate that. We all gotta eat, and if making something that is going to take that much work, you probably want to figure out some way to at least be able to cover the bills so you can have time to continue developing it.

What about developing in a language that is more portable like java or python etc. Then you could make do the routines, that will have a perceivable impact on performance, in ASM. This would allows a sane chance at being able to have your program(s) on lots of platforms and thereby not limiting yourself on possible users that would be interested. Then from there, you could have have the source code available for free (if you wish), but charge for the binary. There would most likely be alot of people that would prefer to pay for the binary instead of going through the hassle of compiling (some people have more money than time for resources and vice versa, and on certain platforms, the majority of users would pay for a piece software long before they would ever bother to compile it.).

You might even have your source code distribution of the program as a 'lite' version, whereas the binary (closed-source version), has some extra bells and whistles that the pros will really like.

This sort of model would kind of tap into the best of both worlds and keep your market nice and broad.

My best friend is in marketting and he once said to me, 'you can take a turd, market it, and put a price tag on it, and you're guaranteed there are a certain percentage of people willing to pay for it. That it's always more of a question of how many people know about it, and whether they can get their hands on it'.

You may want to stick to totally closed source though. Except, I would suspect that you would really be limiting yourself if you only made it for Linux. There certainly is a certain percentage of Linux users that don't care about licensing, and whether something is proprietary or not, but they are probably alot fewer compared to many other platforms. So I think you would be smart to at least give some serious consideration to approaching things in a manner that is very portable.

Also, one thing I wonder about, is if there would be licensing issues to your development. For example, if you were using a compiler that is GPL based, along with libraries that are as well, that it would be in violation of their license to make your project closed source being that they're derived in some form or another. That would come down to the fine print which I've never had the patience to sit down and try to make sense of (legalese makes my head hurt :) )

This is all just my opinion and two cents though. Kind of interesting to brainstorm about this type of stuff.
PingFloyd
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 2006-10-05 23:17

Postby thamarok » 2006-11-16 19:08

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it a lot.

Perhaps using Python isn't a bad idea, but would you think people would buy a binary if they could try compiling the source?
Oh and that about ASM is right, if I make the program on a Intel machine, it most likely won't work as I would expect on a AMD machine.
thamarok
 

Postby Grifter » 2006-11-17 00:37

thamarok wrote:'t a bad idea, but would you think people would buy a binary if they could try compiling the source?


I doubt it, someone would make a package of the source and distribute that for free

But there's nothing that says you have to have anything set in stone, start out with one concept, change it if it doesn't work

But anyway, I'm excited to hear that you've come this far, you seem to be very serious about the whole thing, (having a qt license and all), and I hope it's successful for you, and like I said before, music production stuff is an area where linux is really lacking, at least for the serious professionals, so your contributions will be an excellent addition
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
Grifter
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: 2006-05-04 07:53
Location: Svea Rike

Postby thamarok » 2006-11-17 10:31

Yeah I'm serious about this. I bought the QT license just a month ago.
I'm still thinking about this. Seriously.
thamarok
 

Postby Tyler » 2006-11-17 20:39

PingFloyd wrote:
Also, one thing I wonder about, is if there would be licensing issues to your development. For example, if you were using a compiler that is GPL based, along with libraries that are as well, that it would be in violation of their license to make your project closed source being that they're derived in some form or another. That would come down to the fine print which I've never had the patience to sit down and try to make sense of (legalese makes my head hurt :) )



A compiler and the code it compiles are separate things in licensing terms. You can use gcc to make proprietary, closed source apps without infringing the GPL at all. Most of the main GNU libraries are licensed LGPL, which allows them to be used in closed software as well. Other libraries you'd have to check with, but compiling code with gcc and linked to LGPL libraries imposes no restrictions regarding the source code you write.

Tyler
Lenny & fluxbox
Thinkpad R60
Tyler
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 2006-09-04 12:16

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

fashionable