livetrax/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>

<!DOCTYPE section PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.4//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd" [

]>

<section id="sn-why-is-it-called-ardour">
  <title>Why is it called "Ardour" and other questions</title>
  <section id="why-ardour">
    <title>Why "Ardour" ?</title>
    <para>
      The name "Ardour" came from considerations of how to pronounce the
      acronym <glossterm linkend="gt-hdr">HDR</glossterm> (Hard Disk
      Recorder). The most obvious attempt sounds like a vowelless "harder"
      and it then was then a short step to an unrelated by slightly
      homophonic word:
    </para>

    <para>
      <emphasis>ardour</emphasis>
      <quote>
        n 1: a feeling of strong eagerness (usually in favor of a person or
        cause); "they were imbued with a revolutionary ardor"; "he felt a
        kind of religious zeal" [syn: ardor, elan, zeal] 2: intense feeling
        of love [syn: ardor] 3: feelings of great warmth and intensity; "he
        spoke with great ardor" [syn: ardor, fervor, fervour, fervency,
        fire, fervidness]
      </quote>
    </para>

    <para>
      Given the work required to develop Ardour, and the personality of its
      primary author, the name seemed appropriate even without the vague
      relationship to <glossterm linkend="gt-hdr">HDR</glossterm> .
    </para>

    <para>
      Years later, another interpretation of "Ardour" appeared, this time
      based on listening to non-native English speakers attempt to pronounce
      the word. Rather than "Ardour", it became "Our DAW", which seemed
      poetically fitting for a <glossterm linkend="gt-daw">Digital Audio
      Workstation</glossterm> whose source code and design belongs to a
      group of collaborators.
    </para>
  </section>

  <section id="why-write-another-daw">
    <title>Why write another DAW?</title>
    <para>
      There are already a number of excellent digital audio workstations. To
      mention just a few: ProTools, Nuendo, Samplitude, Digital Performer,
      Logic, Cubase (SX), Sonar, along with several less well known systems
      such as SADIE, SAWStudio and others. Each of these programs has its
      strengths and weaknesses, although over the last few years most of
      them have converged on a very similar set of core features. However,
      each of them suffers from two problems when seen from the perspective
      of Ardour's development group:
    </para>

    <itemizedlist>
      <listitem>
        <para>
          they do not run on Linux
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          they are not available in source code form, making modifications,
          improvements, bugfixes by technically inclined users or their
          friends or consultants impossible.
        </para>
      </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>
  </section>

  <section id="why-linux-and-osx">
    <title>Why Linux (and OS X) ?</title>
    <para>
      Not running on Linux is understandable, given the rather small (but
      growing) share of the desktop market that Linux has. However, when
      surveying the landscape of "popular operating systems", we find:
    </para>

    <itemizedlist>
      <listitem>
        <para>
          older versions of Windows: plagued by abysmal stability and
          appalling security
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          Windows XP: finally, a version of Windows that seems stable but
          still suffers from incredible security problems
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          OS X: an amazing piece of engineering that is excellent for audio
          work but only runs on proprietary hardware and still lacks the
          flexibility and adaptability of Linux.
        </para>
      </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>

    <para>
      Security matters today, and will matter more in the future as more and
      more live or semi-live network based collaborations take place.
    </para>

    <para>
      Let's contrast this with Linux, an operating system which:
    </para>

    <itemizedlist>
      <listitem>
        <para>
          can stay up for months (or even years) without issues
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          is endlessly configurable down to the tiniest detail
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          is not owned by any single corporate entity, ensuring its life and
          direction are not intertwined with that of a company (for a
          contrary example, consider BeOS)
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          is fast and efficient
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          runs on almost any computing platform ever created, including old
          "slow" systems
        </para>
      </listitem>

      <listitem>
        <para>
          is one of the most secure operating systems "out of the box"
        </para>
      </listitem>
    </itemizedlist>

    <para>
      More than anything, however, Ardour's primary author uses Linux and
      wanted a DAW that ran there.
    </para>

    <para>
      Having written a DAW for Linux, it turned out to be relatively easy to
      port Ardour to OS X, mostly because of the excellent work done by the
      JACK OS X group that ported JACK to OS X. Although OS X has a number
      of disadvantages compared to Linux, its ease of use and its presence
      in many studios already makes it a worthwhile platform.
    </para>
  </section>

  <section id="why-doesnt-ardour-run-on-windows">
    <title>Why doesn't Ardour run on Windows ?</title>
    <para>
      There have been several discussions about porting Ardour to Windows.
      The obstacles are relatively few in number, but rather substantial in
      significance. Ardour was written to run on operating systems that
      properly and efficiently support a portable operating system standard
      called <glossterm linkend="gt-posix">POSIX</glossterm> (endorsed by
      the US government and many other large organizations). Linux and OS X
      both do a good job of supporting POSIX, but Windows does not. In
      particular, the efficiency with which Windows handles certain aspects
      of the POSIX standard makes it very hard to port Ardour to that
      platform. It is not impossible that we will port Ardour at some point,
      but Windows continues to be a rather unsuitable platform for pro-audio
      work despite the improvements that have been made to it in the last
      few years.
    </para>
  </section>

  <section id="need-dsp-hardware">
    <title>Don't I need DSP hardware to run a good DAW?</title>
    <para>
      Please see XXX for a discussion of the merits of dedicated DSP
      hardware.
    </para>
  </section>

  <section id="ardour-is-complicated">
    <title>Isn't this a really complicated program?</title>
    <para>
      There is no point in pretending that Ardour is a simple, easy to use
      program. The development group has worked hard to try to make simple
      things reasonably easy, common tasks quick, and hard and/or uncommon
      things possible. There is no doubt that we have more to do in this
      area, as well as polishing the user interface to improve its
      intuitiveness and work flow characteristics. At the same time,
      multi-track, multi-channel, non-linear, non-destructive audio editing
      is a far from simple process. Doing it right requires not only a good
      ear, but a solid appreciation for basic audio concepts and a robust
      mental model/metaphor of what you are doing. Ardour is not a simple
      "audio recorder" - you can certainly use it to record stereo (or even
      mono) material in a single track, but the program has been designed
      around much richer capabilities than this.
    </para>
  </section>
<!--
	<xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" 
		href="Some_Subsection.xml" />
	-->
</section>