208 lines
7.3 KiB
XML
208 lines
7.3 KiB
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>
|