Paul Davis
45d3ec1437
git-svn-id: svn://localhost/ardour2/branches/2.1-staging@1698 d708f5d6-7413-0410-9779-e7cbd77b26cf
223 lines
7.9 KiB
XML
223 lines
7.9 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>
|