I know, I was telling HIM not to feed the troll. He’s definitely NOT a troll.
I know, I was telling HIM not to feed the troll. He’s definitely NOT a troll.
I haven’t seen any evidence of trolling on this thread, one of the longest on the forum, although it has veered off-topic at times. The thread seems to attract a lot of people who clearly don’t want the option to use Cubase on Linux, who then make sweeping statements based on no evidence, usually to the effect that Steinberg won’t have resources to produce a Linux version (despite having no way to know this, and the other non-Windows, non-Mac products already available from Steinberg), or broad prejudicial views on the type of person that might use Linux; ironically, many probably written on Linux-based devices on this Linux-powered internet.
Can I therefore respectfully request that we get back on topic, to discuss whether or not a Linux version would be a desirable option and reasons why or why not, and let’s just assume for the moment that software development resources would not be an issue for a large multinational such as Yamaha-Steinberg, should the decision be made that there is a market for a Linux option.
Please note also that this is about an option to run Cubase on Linux, not a request to cease any current version, and not about OS-wars. There have been some very good arguments both for and against.
There is no money in Linux. Never has been, never will. Why waste resources?!?
Thanks Raphie for illustrating the very point I was making about people making sweeping statements not based on any evidence. There might be a market for a “hardware” Cubase for example; built into a 19" rack and running on a customised, rock solid Linux, which would eliminate all the variables of OS and hardware drivers, would not incur a Windows license, would not be susceptible to malware, couldn’t be pirated, etc. etc. Think positive!
A cubase appliance not going to happen, people want open standards, install hacked VSTi’s pay no more than €200 for a DAW etc. etc.
Let’s not even start about ecosystem support. Top 10 audio hardware vendors do NOTHING to support Linux.
There are some class compliant usb exceptions, but those are hobby cards, not for pro’s and these hobbyists are not going to spend 5k€ for a closed ecosystem appliance… marketing 1:1 there is NO businesscase for Linux on the desktop.
What do you mean by that?
Linux users are willing pay more than average for software/games. And we’re not about free software/open-source only.
The fun part of this experiment was that the customer could choose how much they paid for the bundle, which could be as little, or as much as people liked.
The stats are clear, though. On average Linux users have paid $11.63 for the bundle where as Windows users paid just $3.80. Mac users fall in the middle and averaged $6.61. Overall, the average is $4.78 per purchase. Are you real?!?
I think this goes back to just pure volume of sales. You have to consider that music is a fraction of all of the software sales, and higher end software a fraction of that, and then you have to divide that into Linux users. So once you’ve done that how much potential profit do you have and how high will the additional development and support costs be?
For sure more than 2 guys willing to pay 11$…
I actually believe that Steinberg recognizes the opportunity and are (or should be) preparing for the inevitable move to Linux. Their release of the VST SDK with a Linux preview early this year is certainly a good sign. Recording computers are very often single purpose machines used by people with some engineering abilities which makes them a much easier target market. The fact that Linux is the most stable and cost effective OS of the big three is the real kicker. There are significant issues that seem to be getting worse when it comes to Apple. Windows on the other hand is, well, let’s just say it’s “not the best”.
Apple has repeatedly made their new machines lack on-board backward hardware compatibility by substituting new interfaces (2 types of Firewire, followed by 3 Thunderbird iterations) and they have “bricked” many a mid to low end interface by changing their ASIO api so that older drivers no longer work. This has forced many Steinberg customers to spend money on unneeded hardware instead of software often going with expensive top shelf interfaces because the manufacturers produce their own end to end drivers. This comes at a cost to Steinberg. While Apple’s Mac Pro with OS X is a proven stable platform the cost difference compared to a custom DIY tower is significant to say the least. I own a Mac Pro and while it isn’t top shelf having “only” a 6 Core Xeon E5 3.5GHz with 1TB SSD, 128MG RAM, it still cost me over $5000.
Windows remains focused on lower cost with higher flexibility for personal and business software. Realistically it has and always will lack the key requirement for audio recording: stability under heavy stress with high throughput hardware. Although this doesn’t effect average users, Steinberg market isn’t really focused on average users but rather on niche power users who tend to increase demands to the point of failure. The main difference between Windows and OS X is that of catastrophic failure vs controlled failure. The worst thing that can happen is a crash with its consequential lost or corrupted data and Windows is simply more prone in this regard.
As a professional software engineer and long time digital audio engineer (20 years) who works with all three systems on a daily basis there is no doubt which one is the superior between OS X and Windows and it’s OS X hands down. However, I believe Ubuntu 16.04 is truly ready to compete and has the benefits of both without the flaws of either. I have been running it on a Lenovo P50 Laptop (128GB RAM, 1TB SSD, i7-5500U with 4MB Cache/ 3GH) for almost two years. I run it hard and fast and it is more stable than the Mac Pro, which is very stable.
Ubuntu is clearly leading the way in usability with Debian cutting the path forward. I find it far more user friendly than Windows and far more flexible than OS X. Ubuntu is in my opinion ready for the first serious professional audio recording software to make the move. From a business perspective this first mover advantage should not be underestimated, especially at the higher end of the market where the Apple appears to be having significant problems with hardware limitations (e.g. pathetic 2017 MacBook Pro max of 16GB RAM).
Although hardware compatibility with Ubuntu is limited there are quite a few Firewire devices that already work. The drivers come purely from the community and some companies like UAD with their Unison technology would need to also port their software to take full advantage. That is a chicken and egg problem that will only be solved by adoption which requires a major DAW to port first.
Bottom line, in the questions of cost and performance Linux is the hands down winner and is primed to take over the market for high performance audio recording. Whichever amongst the top DAW providers capture this market may very well be the most significant player in the field in a few years. My preference is to see Steinberg there.
I can’t find the classifieds… but I’m selling this for $2,400:
Well, if a computer is single-purpose, then it’s really no big deal setting up a Windows system drive that’s entirely stable. I can’t remember the last time I had a crash while working, or at all actually (Win 7). This whole talk about stability is often a bit overblown I find.
Now, looking at Steinberg specifically, since some time has passed and Nuendo v8 came out, I actually am firmly against a Linux version. Steinberg can’t put out a clean, almost fully functional release on their flagship application, so to dilute their resources by adding another OS is just lunacy in my book.
I really hope so
Well said! I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Linux distros are very mature nowadays. The ‘chicken or the egg’ problem is the main reason people are not migrating/porting software to Linux.
I hope the VST SDK was just the beginning
Btw, 2017 survey from StackOverflow (https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017) was a surprise for me. Most developers are using Linux already
33% isn’t most though… or am I missing something…?
So, I just discovered that Cubase is not built on Qt. Is that true? It would be a hell lot easier to port if it was.
edit: I’m talking about the framework, not QT (QuickTime).
What matters is that it’s already cross-platform. Mac OS is based on Unix, as is Linux. Windows is the odd one out.
But all the libs and third-party stuff they might use to build Cubase may not be fully compatible with Linux, even if they work on macOS (that is Unix-based).
I really wish we could have an official response from Steinberg on how difficult it would be to port it to Linux, to have a more realist view of all the process.
Well, Cubase 9.5 has just been released today and guess what? It IS now based on Qt!
I vote +1 for Linux becoming an option for Cubase. As a matter of fact, applications like Cubase currently prevent me from ditching Windows in favour of Linux.
I’ve recently caught myself searching for how to build a hackintosh with my PC, to run away from the half baked, buggy Windows 10.
Davinci Resolve ( video editor ) has now added a download option of a CentOS distro iso with Resolve preinstalled and nVidia drivers ready to go .
Way forward maybe ?
… or, as I alluded to in my original post, a bootable USB device that would incorporate audio interface, eLicenser and storage running a customised Linux. Linux support continues in the latest developer’s VST SDK 3.6.9 so it looks like some progress is being made.