diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml')
| -rw-r--r-- | manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml | 405 |
1 files changed, 210 insertions, 195 deletions
diff --git a/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml b/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml index c4b56f2819..55b659958a 100644 --- a/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml +++ b/manual/xml/why_is_it_called_ardour.xml @@ -5,201 +5,216 @@ ]> <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> + <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" /> |