diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml')
| -rw-r--r-- | manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml | 207 |
1 files changed, 207 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml b/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..c4b56f2819 --- /dev/null +++ b/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ +<?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> |