reduz,
I have nothing against linux... I use it in my company, both as a developer (Kylix)
and as a user (our firewall, as an example, runs on Mandrake linux).

The problem is not related to linux, but to the approach that comes out from
liontracs people messages. One of them said that:
"Our goal is to make all the software that powers the Mediastation open source
so that users can customize it, improve it fix eventual bugs etc."
and this assertion clearly leads to my point about users not being programmers.
Add to this my deep doubts about making all the software open source... I think that
company management has something to say about this...


Then, a couple of your replies have no sense at all.
You say that every product has its lifetime. So what? I think that you ignore
(or undervaluate) how hard can be the process of customizing an operating system,
and how much harder can be the process of continuing someone's else work.
So, liontracs mission (producing a software-only musical instruments) is very hard,
because they have to fight against big, worldwide music companies (Yamaha, Korg and
Roland, just to name three of them), and against other companies with the same idea
(eKo), and against people scared from their approach, and against people who thinks
that 5000 (+ taxes) are too much ....
Then, another problem: just suppose that the board comes to reality... you can have
the best product in the whole world, but you won't sell a single piece without good
advertising...
And, finally, the customer-care problem.
So, while I wish liontracs all the best, I should carefully evaluate pros and cons.

BTW, when you say that with liontracs you can "...have a sampler of the quality of
giga or halion, or software synthesizers of the quality of reaktor, fm7 or DAWs at
the level of protools all running together in the same machine", you forget to mention
how much money we need to buy all those programs.


Finally, I hate when someone start publishing its product saying that it is good
because it uses Linux, and the other is bad because of Microsoft.
I know where I come from: I experienced many PC operating systems, both as a user
and as a programmer: DOS, Concurrent Dos, MOS, GEM, Novell, OS/2, PCos, BOSS, Linux,
Windows... and APPLE, from the IIE model to first Mac, passing thru Lisa ...

All have their pros and cons, related to their age, of course.

But I builded a company and earn a life for me and eight more people employed in my
company (not to talk about our families) thanks to Microsoft operating systems,
languages and products. As an example, no other OS is able to run last generation
windows applications side by side with a 20 years old MS-DOS application.

I've seen the raise of Novell NetWare operating system.
My company builded one of the biggest (for that time) WAN of Europe when more than 80
banks have been linked to a big IBM S36 thru almost 100 Novell Netware servers.
Then, I've seen the fall of NetWare when Microsoft started networking with NT.

I've seen the start of Novell-IBM-Apple software component model (CORBA) and its fall
because of Microsoft's COM (surely worst and buggy, but it runs; not to talk about
the hundreths of COM object commercially available)

I've seen the start of IBM OS/2, who never raised because of windows NT

So, if you like linux because of linux, then good, no problem. As already said, linux
is surely better for certain tasks. But, please, giev to Bill Gates the credits he gained.

Regards

Ric