Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
What do you think about this project?
What do you think about this project?
Hello!
I am enjoying Debian very much (especially after I made a succesful custom kernel)
I am a hard-core music junkie and I have been thinking of starting a commercial project (but there will be also some free software).
I am going to make powerful music creation software and audio software.
Some ideas that I have in my head:
Flash Radio
A program that let's you to manage your own radio station. You will get a management program and a pre-configured flash file (based on Shockwave Flash 7). The installation is simple, you upload the flash file to your webserver, embed it to one of your pages and when a user goes to your page, he/she can access your radio station and hear music/broadcasts/whatever.
Features:
Support for direct-recording from microphone.
Organize playlists with ease.
"Realtime" playback for the user.
"On Air" switch to turn the radio station on/off.
Linux Music Studio
A realtime sequencer for creating real 32-bit music (no MIDI stuff, real MP3 stuff). I will implement a synthesizer engine for this program, so it will make music through synthesizers. I will create lots of synthesizers (drum machines, guitar, bass, 8-bit sound synthesizers..) in a standalone version (which will export to WAV or MP3) and a plugin version which will work in my sequencer.
Features:
Easy-to-use API for own synthesizer creation.
Support for "effect" plugins (reverb, resonance)
Supports ALSA, OSS and JACK.
A skinnable interface.
Support for WAV, OGG and MP3 files to act like synthesizers.
Will have a wrapper for VST synths (It will be unstable though)
Support for external MIDI devices.
Use your keyboard as a MIDI device to sequence music.
Support for importing MIDI files to make a quick remix.
LinuxDJ
A DJ program for real hard-core music junkies. Remix your WAV, OGG and MP3 files and give superior effects to the lame sounds
Features:
2 "discs" which you can jam with your mouse to be a "real" DJ.
Can use the same effects as those for Linux Music Studio.
A powerful Audacity-like sound editor.
Support for adding WAV, OGG MP3 files to the beat (for example drum loops, etc..)
Standard MIDI-like functions (change tempo, resonance, pitch, etc..)
---------------------------------
Well, what do you think?
I am currently developing these programs and I am going to publish them as commercial software. Do you think I could succeed?
Please post your comments, feedback and whatever you like.
Thanks!
I am enjoying Debian very much (especially after I made a succesful custom kernel)
I am a hard-core music junkie and I have been thinking of starting a commercial project (but there will be also some free software).
I am going to make powerful music creation software and audio software.
Some ideas that I have in my head:
Flash Radio
A program that let's you to manage your own radio station. You will get a management program and a pre-configured flash file (based on Shockwave Flash 7). The installation is simple, you upload the flash file to your webserver, embed it to one of your pages and when a user goes to your page, he/she can access your radio station and hear music/broadcasts/whatever.
Features:
Support for direct-recording from microphone.
Organize playlists with ease.
"Realtime" playback for the user.
"On Air" switch to turn the radio station on/off.
Linux Music Studio
A realtime sequencer for creating real 32-bit music (no MIDI stuff, real MP3 stuff). I will implement a synthesizer engine for this program, so it will make music through synthesizers. I will create lots of synthesizers (drum machines, guitar, bass, 8-bit sound synthesizers..) in a standalone version (which will export to WAV or MP3) and a plugin version which will work in my sequencer.
Features:
Easy-to-use API for own synthesizer creation.
Support for "effect" plugins (reverb, resonance)
Supports ALSA, OSS and JACK.
A skinnable interface.
Support for WAV, OGG and MP3 files to act like synthesizers.
Will have a wrapper for VST synths (It will be unstable though)
Support for external MIDI devices.
Use your keyboard as a MIDI device to sequence music.
Support for importing MIDI files to make a quick remix.
LinuxDJ
A DJ program for real hard-core music junkies. Remix your WAV, OGG and MP3 files and give superior effects to the lame sounds
Features:
2 "discs" which you can jam with your mouse to be a "real" DJ.
Can use the same effects as those for Linux Music Studio.
A powerful Audacity-like sound editor.
Support for adding WAV, OGG MP3 files to the beat (for example drum loops, etc..)
Standard MIDI-like functions (change tempo, resonance, pitch, etc..)
---------------------------------
Well, what do you think?
I am currently developing these programs and I am going to publish them as commercial software. Do you think I could succeed?
Please post your comments, feedback and whatever you like.
Thanks!
Thanks, but would you think I could sell that software?
I was thinking about 20-30€ per product, so it won't be much, but it comes to quality and so far I don't even have a stable beta, but time goes on, so let's wait and see what happens.
The good thing in my programming knowledge is, that I don't know C, C++ or BASIC, but I know a hell a lot of ASM. Assembly is the best language if you like complex sources
Why assembly? Because then I have the power to do ANYTHING the processor can do
I was thinking about 20-30€ per product, so it won't be much, but it comes to quality and so far I don't even have a stable beta, but time goes on, so let's wait and see what happens.
The good thing in my programming knowledge is, that I don't know C, C++ or BASIC, but I know a hell a lot of ASM. Assembly is the best language if you like complex sources
Why assembly? Because then I have the power to do ANYTHING the processor can do
I have no idea if you can sell it or not, I don't make music so I don't know what would be required in a program, or what would make it "superior", but if you make the software good enough then I've no doubt you can sell it for any price you want; that said however
I can only guess about this, but the "big" musicians prolly use windows because the software for it is available there, and the linux users who'd use the software might just be regular mortals who would favour a lower price (:
I don't know, it makes sense in my brain anyway hehe
I can only guess about this, but the "big" musicians prolly use windows because the software for it is available there, and the linux users who'd use the software might just be regular mortals who would favour a lower price (:
I don't know, it makes sense in my brain anyway hehe
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
I've tried to make some music with skale ( www.skale.org ), but I am just not very good at it, I'm much better at listening to music (:
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
A few things I think you would need to think about:
* Assembly is rather hard to program GUIs and other things in - you WILL need to use a bit of C, C++ or something like that.
* Musicians mostly use Windows, there they have their really expensive pro stuff.
* While many Linux users (not me) will use free proprietary stuff, not many are willing to pay.
* Assembly is rather hard to program GUIs and other things in - you WILL need to use a bit of C, C++ or something like that.
* Musicians mostly use Windows, there they have their really expensive pro stuff.
* While many Linux users (not me) will use free proprietary stuff, not many are willing to pay.
Ok then, I'll clear something up.
1. I love assembly very much! GUI making isn't that hard, even QT applications are easy to program. I just apt-get the desired dev packages (like GTK or QT), then I'll import the .so library in my ASM program and the coding starts! The sources are not big, the smallest source for a fully functional QT application with a nice GUI was about 624 lines. I don't need C or other stuff like that. Other people love other languages and other not.
2. My goal is not to take musicians to the Linux side, but to give Linux users the chance to make cool music.
3. I am also going to release demo versions with some limits like a maximum number of synths (maybe 5 or 6) and a maximum track length of 45 seconds. Good for free, isn't it?
1. I love assembly very much! GUI making isn't that hard, even QT applications are easy to program. I just apt-get the desired dev packages (like GTK or QT), then I'll import the .so library in my ASM program and the coding starts! The sources are not big, the smallest source for a fully functional QT application with a nice GUI was about 624 lines. I don't need C or other stuff like that. Other people love other languages and other not.
2. My goal is not to take musicians to the Linux side, but to give Linux users the chance to make cool music.
3. I am also going to release demo versions with some limits like a maximum number of synths (maybe 5 or 6) and a maximum track length of 45 seconds. Good for free, isn't it?
1. Yeah, but you're talking about a massively complex GUI, possibly needing custom widgets. It also means portability = 0. As the world switches to AMD64, that may be a disadvantage later.
2. There is already a lot of software available - just look at http://dynebolic.org and have a look at the software in that distro. It's not just the software, you also need skill.
3. Not when there's Free-as-in-DFSG-free stuff available.
Also note that if you want to use Qt, then be prepared to buy a $2000 licence...
2. There is already a lot of software available - just look at http://dynebolic.org and have a look at the software in that distro. It's not just the software, you also need skill.
3. Not when there's Free-as-in-DFSG-free stuff available.
Also note that if you want to use Qt, then be prepared to buy a $2000 licence...
But there isn't, that's the whole point, if his software is really good then people will get it, there are quite a lot of people that are musicians and are linux enthusiasts too, and would love to make the change if it was possibleajdlinux wrote:3. Not when there's Free-as-in-DFSG-free stuff available.
but your software would have to be killer ;)
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...
ajdlinux: before writing any comments, let me do the application and then you can criticise. I still find it a good idea and who said Linux software should always be open-source?
I have many test machines, two of them has Intel Core 2 Duo, one of them has Intel Core 2 Extreme and the last two ones have AMD64, so I have quite a good "studio" to make programs.
EDIT: Forgot to say, I have already a QT license. That's why it is easier for me to make GUI stuff (GTK is so hard I can't even see my eyes )
EDIT2: Dyne:bolic doesn't seem to have that great audio software. Sure Linux has some audio creation software like Ardour and Rosegarden, but they are not that good to make great music like in FL Studio for Window$. That's my point.
I have many test machines, two of them has Intel Core 2 Duo, one of them has Intel Core 2 Extreme and the last two ones have AMD64, so I have quite a good "studio" to make programs.
EDIT: Forgot to say, I have already a QT license. That's why it is easier for me to make GUI stuff (GTK is so hard I can't even see my eyes )
EDIT2: Dyne:bolic doesn't seem to have that great audio software. Sure Linux has some audio creation software like Ardour and Rosegarden, but they are not that good to make great music like in FL Studio for Window$. That's my point.
There is of course up to you to choose how to licence your program but if I may I'd like to offer my opinion on that:thamarok wrote:ajdlinux: before writing any comments, let me do the application and then you can criticise. I still find it a good idea and who said Linux software should always be open-source?
The average Linux user really care about how the product is licenced and many of us are fairly pasionate about making sofware free (as in freedom). A closed sourced, comercial licenced Linux program really have a very limited userbase potential. You see... if we didn't care about the heart values of GNU/ Linux we'd probably never bothered messing with it and rather stayed with Microsoft.
So when you decide to make a closed source comercial product you don't compete with existing Linux programs like Rosegarden and the like, you actually compete with Windows software. Because if you're going to shell out serious bucks on a software package you care more about functionality than you care about the platform it will run on. And the high end musician will already have a handfull of programs and gizmos running under Windows.
It might just work though, if you create one heck of a music suite but I highly doubt it. I'm fairly sertain that if you want to 'steal' market shares from the Windows platform, proprietary software is not the way to go...
Just my humble opinion. As I said, you are free to do whatever you like regarding licencing of your own software. After all... this IS Linux
Tina
Argh.. my head hurts!
This open-source thing is taking me to court... Do you think I could succeed by selling the sourcecode of my applications? For me, that doesn't make much sense,
EDIT: Do you know what? I am going to make free Linux versions of my applications (but, closed-source)!
I should have a stable alpha release of Linux Music Studio at the end of the year, so be prepared to make some music
I am still studying the Shockwave Flash 7 specifications, so Flash Radio will need to wait a little.
And as I'm developing Linux Music Studio, I'll see how far I get in LinuxDJ.
Now as I know once again a little more from marketing, could someone tell me how to still get money? I am thinking of advertisements, but how much is the amount that you get monthly (approximately)?
And a donation button would be good... Or?
Thanks!
EDIT: I am still thinking of making commercial products for Linux, because I need some extra money, because my intake isn't that high.
This open-source thing is taking me to court... Do you think I could succeed by selling the sourcecode of my applications? For me, that doesn't make much sense,
EDIT: Do you know what? I am going to make free Linux versions of my applications (but, closed-source)!
I should have a stable alpha release of Linux Music Studio at the end of the year, so be prepared to make some music
I am still studying the Shockwave Flash 7 specifications, so Flash Radio will need to wait a little.
And as I'm developing Linux Music Studio, I'll see how far I get in LinuxDJ.
Now as I know once again a little more from marketing, could someone tell me how to still get money? I am thinking of advertisements, but how much is the amount that you get monthly (approximately)?
And a donation button would be good... Or?
Thanks!
EDIT: I am still thinking of making commercial products for Linux, because I need some extra money, because my intake isn't that high.
Sorry (I'm an open source fanatic... don't listen to fanatics, they make your head hurt )thamarok wrote:Argh.. my head hurts!
I don't know if you can make money of open source software. But alot of people insists you can.This open-source thing is taking me to court... Do you think I could succeed by selling the sourcecode of my applications? For me, that doesn't make much sense,
Yeah... well, why not do it other way around? Sell the software and give away the sourcecode?EDIT: Do you know what? I am going to make free Linux versions of my applications (but, closed-source)!
Sure! I'm ready... if it's GPL'ed that isI should have a stable alpha release of Linux Music Studio at the end of the year, so be prepared to make some music
A donation button is a good idea for a free (as in beer) product.Now as I know once again a little more from marketing, could someone tell me how to still get money? I am thinking of advertisements, but how much is the amount that you get monthly (approximately)?
And a donation button would be good... Or?
Hey my friend, that is your god given right and never forget that no matter what old grumpy GPL fanatics like me say. We all need to make a living and if you can make one writing and selling commercial proprietary software it's great. I just wanted you to know that a whole bunch of Linux users (me included) probably will not buy it. Not because it costs money, but because we (the grumpy GPL fanatics) for some reason insist on having the right to do whatever we want with our software. So it's really simple: if you are not prepared to give me that freedom I will not buy your product. That is *my* right... we both win!EDIT: I am still thinking of making commercial products for Linux, because I need some extra money, because my intake isn't that high.
Tina
There *is* software available, it just isn't brilliant. I'll have to wait for him to finish the app before I can say whether it will be better or not. As Lavene said commercial software like this has to compete with Windows software, not just Rosegarden and other Linux software.Grifter wrote: But there isn't, that's the whole point, if his software is really good then people will get it, there are quite a lot of people that are musicians and are linux enthusiasts too, and would love to make the change if it was possible
but your software would have to be killer
I would guesstimate that 90% of desktop Linux users (except perhaps Xandros/Linspire/Mepis-type users) have not paid for Linux software - most paid proprietary Linux software is server software.
thamarok, if you want to make software like Windows-quality software, you'd have to be a good programmer... especially in assembly...
grifter, Free Software improves when people contribute - I can't say what the Linux music software scene will be like when thamarok finishes his programs, but I would think the free software out there will have improved.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I doubt it, someone would make a package of the source and distribute that for freethamarok wrote:'t a bad idea, but would you think people would buy a binary if they could try compiling the source?
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...