Perhaps Linux isn't such a great concept.

[fwojciec]

How do we get to "mainstream" without full-time paid for projects?

Why do we need to get to "mainstream"? I don't care about linux becoming "mainstream" -- I just need it to be popular enough for hardware manufacturers to provide linux drivers, that's all I need.

Also, if it works better for your purposes you should, by all means, use Windows.

[the yawner]

Uhm, you're trying to argue against a simple fact. That is, people who can code generally contribute to projects of their interests. This means, for you to have your desired application, you would need to either:
- Write your own code if you're capable
- Find a programmer that shares your interests (possibly a musician too)
- Guide a willing programmer (who has little to no knowledge with regards to creating music) to work with you in creating your desired application

In short, you can participate in a number of ways. But if you cannot be bothered to do any of these options then you will have to wait for someone else who's more willing.

Perhaps Linux isn't such a great concept because it encourages you to take part in the action, when you would rather be a customer. One who's willing (or demanding) to receive products and services for free.

[RiceMonster]

There is no incentive to develop it but also the programmers are not musicians, so how would they know what I need?

I'm taking computer science in college and I play guitar in a band. What makes you so sure no developer plays music?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Why should it be? Why does music software even exist in Linux? There is no incentive to develop it but also the programmers are not musicians

Oh yes they are
(Jokosher is still a young project, but it's quite awesome. Brought to you in part by our own Jono Bacon).
Actually, I've noticed that a disproportionate number of programmers also are musicians, at least in some way. Makes sense, since both tasks involve a lot of spatial thinking. Who knows? Maybe you'll be better at it than you think.

As for the issue you are discussing, that is why commercial software exists. The "built because the developer needed it" type of free software is interesting because it is released in the thought that a community could contribute back to it, making it even more useful at little cost since it wasn't going to be sold anyway.

Then the "built for others" type of free software is a different field entirely. I disagree with your belief that it is impossible. The GNOME project, for example, makes lots of decisions based on the world around it instead of the proprietary opinions of those in the know. It is intent on being easy, user friendly and understandable to those who are not expert computer users. That isn't catering to the awesome programmers working on it; that's work for average users who just want to get things done.

Finally, programmers are not a natural resource. There are all sorts of ways to build computer software. One of them is hiring a developer who is happy to work for money. However, a programmer (and I bet you think the same way being a musician) vastly prefers working on something he likes. See, for example, the difference in quality between most tax software / virus scanner front-ends and most games. A programmer even more prefers working on something he chose to work on himself. (Again, there are some remarkably polished independent games out there, and the quality of a lot of free software is another example).
So yes, the best way to get something that works right is to do it yourself, or at least nail together a concept; show how a music editor could be superbly amazing and someone may be interested in helping with it.

Bottom line is there is nothing broken here because free software (outside of big-GPLed stuff) is not excluding other possibilities of getting things done.

[sicofante]

Very often those that design the software don't contribute any code to the project at all.

Actually, one of the biggest problems in Linux development is that programmers do design software and there are very few software designers non-programmers that work in the free software arena; mainly because they're scarce and very high paid professionals.

M. Shuttleworth has brought a little hope to the matter when he announced he would be hiring professional usability experts and designers. We haven't seen it materialzed yet but I keep my fingers crossed.

Why do we need to get to "mainstream"? I don't care about linux becoming "mainstream" -- I just need it to be popular enough for hardware manufacturers to provide linux drivers, that's all I need.

Also, if it works better for your purposes you should, by all means, use Windows.

I was missing this classic (how tiring, really).

1- Be careful when you go from "I" to "we". "You" represent just yourself. There are a hundred reasons why WE need to go mainstream, while none of each might matter to YOU. Once you understand the difference you should stop posting nonsense.

2- No one needs your permission for using Windows. If you have a positive advice for the OP, go ahead. If you have any contribution about how to make Linux easier for musicians, put it on the table. But if your only idea is the linux-elite classic "go away and go back to Windows", you should rather save it for yourself, since it doesn't help the OP or anyone else and only makes the community you belong to look idiotic.

[BGFG]

Why should it be? Why does music software even exist in Linux? There is no incentive to develop it but also the programmers are not musicians, so how would they know what I need? And no one is writing the manuals. While Ubunto apps as written by hobbyists it will always be this way. And thats a pity because it was a good idea and some PCs are being sold pre installed with Ubuntu. Hatred of all things MS is not sufficient to made Linux mainstream. So how is it going to jump from querky hobby to everyday plug and play?

I do see what you are getting at, but you post does seem a bit selfish. here's the way i look at it:

A programmer somewhere saw the need for some type of music software. on their own initiative he/she researched the area in question as best as they could then spent probably thousands of manhours, taken from their personal lives to put working code together, further to which went through all the hoops of getting ones software into the repos, or hosted on a website or whatever. Any expense thus far absorbed by the programmer. This complicated music software is made available to you for free.

You, end user, come along, connect to repos download free software and proceed to complain.

I do feel that the community as a whole would benefit from more documentation in some areas but the point remains that it is members of the same community that have to help out to achieve this.

In this case, why don't you, a bass player contact the dev and contribute to the software in question, give a musicians point of view and help to further enhance the community ?

Or would you prefer to wait for someone else to contribute hours of their life to documentation, so you can just play bass.

Anyone happening across this post, PLEASe read:

http://www.arachnoid.com/freeware/index.html

[PryGuy]

Nu music project, you say "Perhaps Linux isn't such a great concept." You mean Linux is a bad concept 'cause you can't drum using it? Ridiculous, don't you think?

[namegame]

I'm taking computer science in college and I play guitar in a band. What makes you so sure no developer plays music?

Exact same for me, except I play bass.

[smartboyathome]

Actually, I think Linux has one of the best WYSIWYG score editors available for educators, called NtEd. As a Music student, I love it, and my music teacher's old Noteworthy program is starting to lack now for her and me (she plays at gigs as well as teaches music). Unfortunately, though, NtEd uses ALSA for midi playback, so it can't be ported to other Operating Systems which don't use it (like Mac OS X and Windows).

[chucky chuckaluck]

why should vocalists know how to mess with microphones when there are so many anal retentive guitarists around to do it for them?