All very interesting points, but we have to start thinking outside the box a little bit … one option Linux offers which is not available with proprietary operating systems is that of providing the complete software infrastructure, OS and applications, as a customized distribution, with all the usual realtime audio optimizations.
Steinberg could test only Steinberg interfaces and only on the Steinberg Linux distribution and support only those; that would still offer a Linux version of the application to those who wished to run it on Debian, Ubuntu or Red Hat, but in the knowledge that they can only avail of official support if the problem is reproducible on either of the existing, supported proprietary operating systems.
The advantage I would see for Steinberg is the possibility of offering complete turnkey solutions to studios where they have control over every aspect of hardware and software; through Yamaha and Line 6 there is already a very capable hardware division. As a pleasant side effect, Linux die-hards get to run Cubase … and Steinberg interfaces (although the open-source community already has the latter covered).
I don’t want to be stuck with having everything made by Steinberg. That sounds like a bad idea, also a huge expense plus they don’t make the best hardware.
All I’m suggesting is that there would be an option to run Cubase on Linux …even if you’re adamantly against the idea, nobody is suggesting that the Windows and Mac versions would cease, so you would just carry on as you do now.
It would slow down advances in Cubase because it would divert engineers. They would only be working for a tiny minority of users. That is why I am adamantly opposed to it. It would not be a small thing for them to do when you consider all the bugs that would arise.
Let’s say cars only come in black and white. Most people have black cars, many have white cars. Now a few people want red cars, and suddenly the black and white car owners are on the barricades because they believe, without any evidence whatsoever but based on pure assumption, that if car manufacturers start making red cars, this will negatively affect the production of black and white cars.
That’s a horrible analogy. That would assume that all cars use exactly the same parts, and the only difference is paint. As we all know, under the hood of the GUI are completely different engines that work in completely different ways.
My point is that nobody is asking anyone to use anything they don’t want to, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that compiling the application for one more OS will be to anyone’s detriment – it’s presumptive and emotional, and if the argument were valid, then people should equally be calling for the abandonment of Cubasis, Cubase IC, Nanologue, Loopmash HD, dspMixFx and all Steinberg hardware. Hell, why not discontinue Cubase for Mac, so that Cubase for Windows will get so much better?
No one is interested in Linux, there is no money in linux, there is no support and it lacks backing by manufacturers. Linux is fine for geeky system engineers who like bashing m$ and manage their free firewall and run Oracle. But it’s not a platform for spoiled producers who want everything plug and play and want 3rd pty support for all their goodies. Forget it, it will NEVER happen… Waste of time, resources and budget…
… which runs on iOS, which is based on an open-source Unix system. Perhaps Steinberg should abandon VST Connect as well, in case it uses up all the engineers that should be working on Windows and OSX?
ER, … NO! It runs on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you were thinking of iC Pro or Cubasis?
However, your continued references to iOS and Android as examples of popular versions of Unix/Linux actually supports the opposite thesis to you.
iOS devices are NOT suitable for a full version of Cubase, as they are totally underpowered for it, BUT, they are VERY popular, as is Android, so have become a target for apps that support certain limited-function or support uses for music generation. Their POPULARITY is what makes them likely to give a satisfactory ROI (Return On Investment), NOT their OS heritage.
Desktop/laptop Linux, out of all the Linux/Unix uses, is the only viable target for a FULL version of Cubase, and its user base is under 2%, and highly fragmented (distribution-wise), which makes it an unlikely investment target for a major commercial DAW maker, as its ROI is likely to be low for several years.
Compared to investing in further developing their versions for the two OSs that have a rich DAW ecosystem, SB investing in an underused OS with practically no DAW ecosystem is unlikely.
However, all it takes is some ideologically-bent person in charge to make a Linux call, which has a precedent in Apple throwing all its Windows Logic users under the bus (as an example of ideological bloody-mindedness), but at least there, they already started with a large OSX user base.
Hell, why not discontinue Cubase for Mac, so that Cubase for Windows will get so much better?
Now it’s getting my attention…kidding
Porting software is a very heavy task, it’s like it should work but ont htis distribution it doesn’t why…and then your a few months further down the line and the next issue can be picked up, anybody worked in the software industry ?
That’s why I know just the per release regression testing across all the multiple versions of the distribs would make them want to , let alone the production costs of the initial conversion.
Does anyone know what cross-platform dev tools SB is using now, and whether they can target Linux?
Of course, Cubase is more than just a DAW engine, as it includes VSt(i)s and utility programs, which would all have to be done in parallel. Get out the tissues now .
I bet that re this issue, head and sand co-location would appear very attractive to SB right now.
That basically takes care of the dev nuts and bolts.
However, there is still:
Determine whether the projected market is worth the ongoing extra regression test suite(s) and support staff.
If OK, determine whether Cubase is feasible to target at Linux, which has many levels, and not just control compatibilities.
If OK, allocate resources to pilot and test a module or so in a test harness to determine effort and issue projections for a full implementation.
If OK, hire extra dev, test and support staff.
As I wrote, SB has probably canvassed this internally and amongst key users several times and the lack of a Linux version is a current answer to your question.
I would say that you would really need to do your homework and build a case, and a goodly number of co-conspirators, to petition SB with some concrete arguments, and not just vague sentiments on a thread that has hardly set the forum on fire with pent up OS-deficiency frustration. Remember, even ‘thinking’ time will cost SB lots of money, so the more that you can provide for zero cost, the more your wants may progress towards deeper consideration by them.
Given the low target user-base numbers (for the general platform), fairly lacklustre (number wise) enthusiasm from users, and that current users will be zero ROI, I don’t hold much hope.
Hmm… well… I would like to see Cubase running on Linux, and I think it’s fully possible. How much work they have to do to make an cross-compiled version (Linux, Mac and Windows capable) is another matter. I am afraid it wont be that easy. That said - They could probably use an chunk of the code for the Mac (that would be an BSD to Linux “translation”).
For now there are already some DAW’s that run on Linux (Ardour jumps to mind, and Bitwig is one of the latest and hottest), and development of the “wine-VST-bridge” called Airwave is progressing nicely…
It would be nice to see Cubase on Linux, but I do not think that would be in the short therm… if at all…
Guess the real question is, when push comes to shove and it’s available, would you pay €600 for a Linux version? Most Linus user already moan over free stuff, let alone stuff they need to pay for
Guess the real question is, when push comes to shove and it’s available, would you pay €600 for a Linux version? Most Linus user already moan over free stuff, let alone stuff they need to pay for
?
