Hi, I have try to install Ardour in Windows, but does not work. Suggestion?
The correct link to the above is this.
that was a very well written piece... and hell we (myself included when I was a linux noob) in the linux and mac communities have given Paul et al. enough hell in the past without inviting a bunch of whindows users.. (can we call them whingers) who are even less likely to contribute in some way..
...or simply 'cause Ardour *IS NOT* multiplatform.
Then I must suggest you to switch away:
Windows has enough DAWs to open a museum with.
-Audacity (primarily a linux program)
Just to name a few. There are still many others like Melodyne Studio 3 which supports up to 8 tracks. But I only use it to fix vocals (many times we find ourselves having to salvage a song instead of aiding in the creative process, eh?).
in what sense can you say that ardour is not multiplatform? it runs on linux, OS X and windows. we choose not to release the windows version. what is your point?
>in what sense can you say that ardour is not multiplatform?
WikiPedia's multi-platform page
Anyway Ardour is *nix oriented, so it's simply NOT multiplatform.
You have a Windows version ? Then (if you don't release it) do you mean that Ardour is "NOT SO" open source too ?
I always believed that the community could help to solve problems...
BTW Ardour approach is very very strange, IMHO.
Switch away (if you don't use *nix OSes).
man, from the wikipedia link you posted, a can read in the end of the second part of the artical:
'A cross-platform application may run on as many as all existing platforms, or on as few as two platforms.'
it seems ardour IS multiplatform and as i understood some older threads on this issue, ardour (and jack) needs for proper running a posix system, which windows is not.
just my two cents...
> ardour (and jack) needs for proper running a posix system
Well then, where's the Haiku port ?
No man, Ardour is Linux only so it's NOT multiplatform.
No man, Ardour is Linux only so it’s NOT multiplatform.
uh ... no, OSX is not linux! far from it ...
Now, ardour's approach is strange ? that's a very relative point of view. On the contrary, I find ardour very normal. So who's right ? :lol:
Sorry for my very bad english,
I want use Ardour with linux, but my audio cards (MARIAN Marc A) doesn't work with Linux, and my Powercore i think.
If ARDOUR work with Windows I buy immediatly !!!
It's bad Ardour not work with Windows... I hope is change...
> OSX is not linux!
Since Mac OS X is POSIX compliant, many software packages written for the *BSDs or Linux can be recompiled to run on it.
But hey, Haiku is POSIX too ! So, again, isn't more simple to port it on Haiku instead of Windows/ReactOS ?
Why the dev team is - wrongly - uninterested in other platforms than linux/osx, then ?
Ardour devs have unclear believes about the open source phylosophy (the bazaar approach) i think...
>It’s bad Ardour not work with Windows…
Forget it and switch to Traverso: http://www.traverso-daw.org/
note: please read the *whole* 3ad before post...
Marco Ravich, I don't want to be rude Dude but switching to Traverso is not really an "Idea for Ardour", which is the main subject of this discussion thread. Either you follow your own advice or you come up with ideas for ardour. The rest looks more like trolling.
Regarding the windows port, if you know some devs that would gladly join and do it, that'd be great. But until then, I don't see any reason anyone would bitch about the lack of a windows port. I think you are missing how difficult Ardour devs daily life is, considering the complexity of Ardour who also happen to develop the Jack audio server, and most of the time for free. You can always donate, and the larger the donation, the better chance it will get done :)
Posted by Thorgal - Sun, 2009-01-11 16:37
" Regarding the windows port, if you know some devs that would gladly join and do it, that’d be great. But until then, I don’t see any reason anyone would bitch about the lack of a windows port. "
No real need.... FWIW I've had Ardour running under Windows since about last November (well more correctly, under Cygwin). I use it for single-step debugging which I've never managed to get working in Linux (at least, not for a multi-threaded app). The only thing I needed to disable was MIDI (and that was only because I didn't have the time to fix it). The rest of Ardour works fine.
Whether or not I'd inflict it on the rest of the world is a different question. Cygwin, to be fair, is a lot easier to install than Linux but it's still way too difficult for the average Windows user. Also, Cygwin's version of 'X' leaves a lot to be desired. Resizing windows is very flickery and although it supports multiple monitors, it doesn't support them very elegantly. Also, everything needs to be launched from a bash terminal which soon becomes hugely annoying. Cygwin also seems to stop working on a regular basis, requiring me "rebase" the DLL's, which is something I've never needed to do on anything else. The limitations are fine for my occasional debugging needs but they'd drive me nuts if I was a regular user. To its credit though, Ardour itself works exceptionally well under Cygwin. Everything else is a PITA though.
thorgal, I wouldn't waste your time responding to Marco Ravich. He's a complete troll. I don't believe there's a single post of his on this entire forum which isn't trying to plug traverso. He doesn't realise that Ardour isn't being ported to Haiku because the developers don't use it and aren't interested and he's obviously not interested in porting it himself (one has to wonder why, if it's so easy).
Whilst I think Java is a great language, I don't think it's DAW material. Enterprise apps? Sure. Professional Audio Apps? No.
Good heavens! This bots are getting smarter and healthier than we real people now. Even tell us what teas too drink when certain bad things happen to us.
excellent I wonder if the bots can critique our mixes and tell us what needs to be fixed for that elusive perfect recording??
I also think it's too bad that the windows version isn' t released. Of course, i respect that choice. I use it on my mac but it's a shame i can't use it on my laptop.
Anyway, i really like the program so keep up the good work.
Hi guys, just read this thread.
As someone familiar with similar discussions / arguments on other FOSS forums, I might humbly suggest that changing your (ardour devs and supporters) approach to people whining about windows ports would do you and the project good in the long term.
You are always going to get people from the closed source world who are only interested in project X meeting their needs, yet who aren't prepared to donate.
Getting annoyed with them only risks making the forum community look unwelcoming to others at first glance, which is really not a good thing in my view.
It is possible to say what you want to about the lack of a windows port in a nicer way. Maybe a canned response on file to such trolls would be a good idea? Save you time in replying and ensure a consistent (diplomatic) answer ;)
Risking being percieved as aggressive in posts isn't likely to be good for user uptake OR donations.
I'm not being critical, only trying to be constructive.
"many times we find ourselves having to salvage a song instead of aiding in the creative process, eh?"
I agree with this comment by Felix and it is actually an example of why I moved to Linux. I want my set up simple and efficient. There is a ton of Windows software that has everything but the kitchen sink but not necessarily what you really need and even then a lot of it runs fine in Wine. I even dropped using Logic Pro. Ardour forces you to record music rather than tweak the life out of it with endless tools and nightmare GUIs never mind all the OS problems inherent in Windows and even OSX.
As stated in the 2nd (and corrected in the 3rd) post in this thread, there is a clear statement on why there is no windows port of Ardour on the website, in the form of a link to this article. 'nuff said. No other comments about why there is no windows port are relevant.
1st of all: I'm not surprised that this 3ad is still alive.
2nd: I readed the whole 3ad again, so I have to clarify my position.
I'm not exactly asking for a Windows port, I'm asking more platform-indipendent approach.
I'm not a Windows lover (even if i'm a user of it) - i *still* prefer OS/2 over it, honestly - but i really don't understand "closed-horizonts" views.
I believe that any OS has its own target: Linux is more server oriented (i'll never trust Windows for this kind of tasks), the "proof in pudding" is its killerapp: Apache
The Windows one is certainly Office, so it's more a home/office OS.
For multimedia (my favourite field) we can open a long discussion, btw it's generally a MAC specialization (even if i believe that graphics is the right one).
Of course, with today PC computing power almost any OS can do everything, but we are also talking about open source so the approach is equally important (to me); in other words i'm a bit scared that Linux apps developers tends to stay in it to convince Windows users to migrate. They don't think that this approach goes to damange other open OSes (Haiku and AROS are just two examples), that may bring active users/developers, for the benefit of the whole community.
And "opening the doors" to Apple (that have even worst proprietary-approach than MicroSoft) don't tastes so freedom to me.
So my request IS NOT for a Windows port, is for platform indipendency.
Last but not least, here's some interesting projects i recently discovered:
Hope that my position is cleared now.
We would love to use Ardour on Linux. Our (Intel) DAW is equipped with three t.c. electronic PowerCore DSP boards to get enougth power to run several plugins on every track of a production. As far as we know there is no linux driver for the PowerCore available. The PowerCore based plugins are available as VST or RTAS. Maybe we can run the VST plugins with Wine on Linux but how we get the PowerCore driver running? Therefor we have to use the Windows-OS with any other DAW-SW than Ardour.
Did you even READ the article I referenced? Have you even bothered to understand that the primary issues with a Windows port are social and not technical?
Years ago, the US government paid to develop the specification of a portable API to access operating system services. It is called POSIX. Ardour is written to use this API. To the extent that this API is available on Windows, Ardour is portable to Windows and in fact has been ported to Windows. But this has no impact on any of the social issues that are the real reason that we have never released a Windows version. If we were convinced that we could deal with the social issues, we could probably release a Windows port in a couple of months. There are no plans to do so.
We did not "open doors" to Apple. OS X just happens to do a very much better job of providing the POSIX API than Windows, and so it was much easier to port Ardour there. It also has a relatively small user base and their user communities are generally more informed, less vitriolic and more willing to support software developers who provide useful tools than the Windows world.
This thread was dead. But you've opened it up again, apparently still without reading (and certainly without addressing) any of the real concerns that we have and that are addressed in Bryce's article. Either read it and talk about them, or please just leave this thread to die.
Did you even READ the article I referenced?
Of course Paul, but seems that you didn't read my post instead.
And honestly, this seems a deaf discussion, IMHO.
Once again: I agree with you, POSIX compliance is != Windows but, as I already claimed:
Haiku is POSIX too !
So forget about Windows port, but please consider Haiku (and not only) one.
Last but not least: for those who won't switch to Linux there's OSX x86 (aka Hackintosh)...
Let me try to spell this out for you. You don't like that Ardour doesn't run on Haiku? Port Jack to Haiku. Port all other dependencies of Ardour to Haiku. Since it is posix compliant it may not be difficult at all. Then port Ardour to Haiku.
This applies to any OS.
I believe a GTK port already exists that utilizes a port of X11, at least that is what a quick google tells me, which is by itself a lot of the hard work. Getting things like Jack running stably would be more.
The OS choices that exist exist because there are developers(Primarily Paul) that have the time to be able to support those platforms. Adding another platform into the mix is not a simple write once and forget it approach, even Posix compliant platforms can(And usually do) have differences in how they handle things. These result in different behaviors that have to be tested and developed for. This takes time and energy by a developer to support, and no small amount of either. There are no developers that currently run Haiku and work on Ardour. You want to port Ardour? Go ahead, but you would be primarily on your own to do so, and then you can submit patches back to Ardour for consideration so long as they don't break any other OS support. Then be prepared to support the development of Ardour and its running on Haiku for the forseeable future.
You may think it is wrong that the dev team does not support other OSes. But if you think it is so wrong, pony up the dough to hire a dev to do all of the above. It is going to either take someone willing to do a LOT of work for free, in which case they would generally need a vested interest, or it will take hiring someone to do the lot of work.
This is a deaf discussion, mainly because people like you are ignoring the fact that it takes lots of time and effort (And in many cases money) to port and support new OSes, even other POSIX compliant OSes.
Port Jack to Haiku. Port all other dependencies of Ardour to Haiku.
So, in other words, you're claiming the same as mine initial critic: Ardour is Linux only (meaning that is too mutch Linux dependent to port).
It's the exact thing that I wanted to underline: the problem is not the POSIX compliance, but the heavy Linux dependency.
I also understand that is too late for Ardour to become platform indipendent, so you have to agree that this discussion targets aren't the Ardour developers/users but others, that may use/help young promising multiplatform projects (such as Traverso or Koblo).
More: I suggest you to put their links in your FAQ, in order to redirect other OSes users in the right path.
Thanks in advice.
forart.it .. you are getting close to the point where i will consider deleting this whole thread.
In the best case you are misinformed when you claim "Ardour is much too Linux dependent to port", and in the worst case you are outright lying. Either way, you have created a thread of misinformation and worse. Ardour already runs on OS X, which you may have noticed IS NOT LINUX. There is code in svn to make it run on Windows (very old code, not current). You might have noticed that this OS is also NOT LINUX. It also runs on (at least one of the) BSD(s) and Solaris, which are also NOT LINUX.
So, I reiterate: Ardour will run on any platform capable of running JACK and that provides a substantial subset of POSIX. Porting it to a new platform that meets these requirements is relatively easy.
So, in other words, you're claiming the same as mine initial critic: Ardour is Linux only (meaning that is too mutch Linux dependent to port).
And just one more thing to underline exactly how wrong you are...
The part you quoted about porting Jack? Jack runs on Windows. Go to the Jack site and you will find a Windows installer. This is for many people about as far from Linux as you can get. GTK Runs on Windows. Those two dependencies by themselves are the VAST majority of dependencies Ardour utilizes. And a lot of the rest are a dependency on a POSIX compliant API, but even then work has been done to get around that on other systems that there are developers for.
So to put it flat out, Paul is correct, you are either very wrong and don't realize it(As well as refusing to accept it), or lying to stir up trouble, aka trolling. At this point I personally believe the thread should be closed. Anything useful that can be said on the topic has been.
Your subscriptions & donations are critical help that make it possible for full-time development of Ardour to continue. Your support is critical and much appreciated.
May goal US$4500 (US$54k/yr)
Subscribers 815 US$1962/month
Support Ardour, get free upgrades: pay $1, $4, $10 or $50/month for a year: