Everybody in the community could help by simply contribute some money to
pay developers. But not so many people seem to do so.
> (fingers crossed for
And politics is the strongest point available if one intends to advocate
free software. It may not be a very strong point measured in
market-terms like amount of potential users but what other points can we
muster?
Price? License-costs are irrelevant in that field if we talk about
professional music production. The only point may be the inconvienience
that comes with licensing for more than one machine, dongles etc. But
for the payment itself: if we want more projects in the league of
Ardour, we would need users, that are willing to fund developers and the
amount of payment should be not lower than the middle class in the
proprietary realm.
Technology? UNIX? Ask Linus: whoever wants UNIX to make music can do so
under MacOSX. And the days, when Windows was unbearably slow and
unstable are over.
> Professionals seem to want to use tools that work, and are
So let them think so and let them do accordingly.
> Ultimately, famous artists are usually
Exactly!
And if the rare case happens, that a talented musician who appeals to
listeners around the world, *does* care about some ethical baggage, and
if he/she finds out about Linux Audio and if either he/she does not need
MIDI-Tracks or likes to work with MIDI in a rather basical way or
Ardour3 is ready for prime-time -- well then someone in the league of
say: PJ Harvey or Mastodon or even Arcade Fire or Antony and the
Johnsons will consider switching to Linux/Free Software. (And all of
them actually could make the same records with Ardour under Linux).
Meanwhile, we use it and in case we meet some other ethical baggagers we
could tell them about. That there is not much to be feared and that
there is life beyond Steinberg and Magix(even though both make software
that is just plain brilliant and in fact more feature-rich than anything
under Linux) and that there is even life beyond VST....