Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open the sources

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sydilaxe
    commented on 's reply
    I don't think you are getting my point and seeing it only from a development standpoint. This is fine, but it is creating a one sided argument. I agree with almost everything you are stating; however, calling someone who bricks their device an "idiot" does not help 1010 when that idiot posts all over social media about their experience and creates a PR scenario that the company has to deal with. As for counter examples in the software world where open source has been a risk or detrimental to a company, you only need to look at the list of companies affected by hackers taking advantage of open source to leverage vulnerabilities. There is an interesting list here (and not comprehensive): https://www.natlawreview.com/article...-business-risk

    Regardless of the size of the 1010 team, I respect this as a business decision (not a technical one) and understand why they stand by it and respectfully decline to open source the firmware.

  • Ademali
    replied
    I don't have much to add here really other than that I also am a software engineer by trade. I would absolutely, positively LOVE the ability to contribute to the black box firmware in my spare time. I would even go so far to say I would happily pay a reasonable fee for access to an SDK in order to write my own functionality into the firmware for personal use. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe if open source isn't right for 1010music, perhaps there's something in-between where people who love to code and tinker can still do the things they want to do with the box.

    I also appreciate that such a move would require a a large amount of effort to separate the SDK from the overall source code, I guess that depends on the current state of the firmware overall. Just an idea nonetheless ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Painting Silence
    commented on 's reply
    of course the extra developer is of great help, but so far the issues we had addressed long ago had not seen any care and I dont really see one excluding the other (going open source and keeping official builds simultaniousely). also customer support for custom firmware builds is generally excluded. like literally in every EULA. and also you dont have to learn software development, why would you? how does it affect you if there is a custom fork? just enjoy the official builds but let the people that want to take it to the next level do their thing. win win

  • Painting Silence
    replied
    sydilaxe it is not like we are reinventing the wheel here. yes custom firmware for a device is tricky and may brick the device but the people that are interested in this usually know about these dangers and the ones that don't care little about custome firmware and stick to the official releases. like as if there aren't any commercial products running custom firmware?! a lot of times custom android builds offer more security as the community picks up faster on possible bugs and security measures than the big vendors. or take graphics card and cpu overclocking as an example. many hobbiists have successfully fried their processors and gpus but nvidia and amd are still in business last time i checked. they even offer overclocking as a stock option having diversified their portfolio to enthusiasts with K variants of intel i processors allowing for inbuild overclocking. or take my nvidia graphics card as an example. the manufacturer limited the fan speed to 80% max leading to my graphics card frequently shutting down on long render sessions due to overheating. like wtf I had to load a custom firmware to enable 100% fan speed, you joking me? it also upped the clock speeds as a nice gimmick and runs stable stable. the list of successful open source builds (even with or especially with embedded development!) is literally endless and anyone installing a custom firmware, bricking their device and then blaming the manufacturer is an idiot (of which there are some but not enough to touch a companies reputation). Now is your turn of providing counter examples where companies have been held liable or lost their reputation because of some open source fork.. btw the argument of the VERY small team is my main argument of going open source to free up the little resources 1010 has available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Painting Silence
    commented on 's reply
    thank you for clarification, Aaron. This is a very reputable history that you have there and I am very impressed by the list of companies you worked for reflecting your epertise and sure a lot of it has led to the design and programming choices of the black box making it the great device it ultimately is (including for me). I thank you for picking up on the debate, that in itself shows that you care about the community and users behind the black box. I think you are also carrying a, let me say, inventors burden? So it is with many novel devices that do things differently, they are usually also met by harsh criticism besides all their innovation. For trailblazers it is hard to satisfy, well.. other trailblazers. I will leave you in peace now with the open source request and thank you for the debate. I still stand by my opinion but of course respect yours. If you ever happen to change your mind, please give us a heads up on this thread, it is never to late to head down another route (fork!). Excited to see where the Black Box is headed in the future!

  • sydilaxe
    commented on 's reply
    But we are talking about a hardware platform, not software running on someone's computer. I am all for open source software; however, this is embedded software running on a piece of hardware that a VERY small team needs to support (whether it is a crooked screen or a bad AD converter or bad memory). If someone loads a bad branch and bricks their machine... who deals with it then? Do you think it would be positive for 1010's reputation if they just said, "well, third party firmware is not supported... enjoy the new $600 doorstop you made."

  • breadmachine
    replied
    Originally posted by sydilaxe View Post
    Keeping this closed, means that there is more control by Aaron and the team. They choose what features are rolled out and when and how to manage bugs and provide service to their customers. As soon as you open source, there will be branches and it becomes impossible to manage from support standpoint.
    Your arguments have been debunked 20 years ago and I invite you to actually look into how open source works for companies!
    In the end it's about giving users more control over their instruments. From a company perspective it is very easy to signal that third-party firmware is not supported.

    Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant because Aaron already said that they're not gonna consider it. Just signals a very 20th century mindset in terms of development. Lots of these companies are also just embarrassed to open their sources because of shoddy code quality. This is speculation of course but I've been a software consultant for the last 15 years and the patterns are usually the same

    Leave a comment:


  • sydilaxe
    replied
    Originally posted by breadmachine View Post

    You say "custom built the OS for these boxes" like that's something special in terms of embedded development.
    And like...the OS is written now. Adding features is going to be much easier that starting something from scratch. C ain't that hard dude
    I did not say special, just unusual (as many platforms are built on existing OSs and platforms), and what is your point? 1010music had a job posting for a developer, if anyone with the skills is interested. I don't understand why there is always a call for making things open source, as if all developers with the skillset are entitled to become cooks in the kitchen. Keeping this closed, means that there is more control by Aaron and the team. They choose what features are rolled out and when and how to manage bugs and provide service to their customers. As soon as you open source, there will be branches and it becomes impossible to manage from a support standpoint. Developers do not always look at things holistically. When I worked in a development company, the developers were not expected to provide customer service or manage relationships with vendors. These are specialized skills, just like development. DevOps is a step in the right direction, but people entering that field from the development side often believe that it just means more automation and containerization and not thinking differently about the ecosystem of product development and release. Personally, I have zero interest in learning software development myself, I just want a stable tool to get creative with and make music.

    Leave a comment:


  • arteom
    commented on 's reply
    What I'm finding buggy when entering notes is being taken back to the very beginning of a sequence when trying to tap a cell. I do think it a core function, and hope that the issue gets resolved soon. Even beyond that it would be helpful if there was another way to enter/delete notes/pads in a sequence via encoders and buttons. That said I understand the BB main interface is touch, so have learned to work with it as such..

  • Aaron
    replied
    At the risk of stating the obvious, do you realize you can pinch and zoom the sequencer view? It is much easier to eliminate a note when you make it bigger. Please save your hair.

    Leave a comment:


  • sirshannon
    replied
    Users are able to program sequences on the thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    I like open source. Let me call out one project I particularly like, tinyXML. It is a great, compact XML parser that I have used in my past three ventures. I highly recommend it.

    Regarding the business model of 1010music, the closed source model is working for us. It has worked well in my past experience over the last 25 years at Native Instruments, Sound Trends (iOS apps), inMusic, MixMeister, and Microsoft in the Windows division.

    We truly want to make you happy with blackbox. If there is something missing--that you haven't already mentioned--please let us know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Painting Silence
    replied
    Could you kindly shed some light as to why you and your team are against going open source? I know you don't "owe" us an explanation but there are evidently quite a few souls here on this board that are very frustrated with the black box and "buy gear on what it can do not what it might be able to do in the future" and "make a wish list thread" is not fair to us if the complaints we are raising are of the simplest nature. I just want to properly be able to browse my library really, or the other guy just wants to properly enter some sequences. There is a lot of brain here on this board and this thread has shown that we are willing to help implement these changes so you can focus on the fancy wishes from them wish list threads (of which we all put in our wishes as well looong ago).

    I am very curious. Do you fear some cheap rip-offs of the the black box appear on the markets due to the available firmware? Do you fear revenue losses due to users manufacturing their own black boxes? Are you fearing the black box suffers reputation if some developer fried his board? Or are you fearing the custom firmware that might appear will even outpace the official builds? Or is it just that the tonality of some participants on this thread does not suit you? If you could help me understand where your concerns lie it be highly appreciated as I and the other users have spend a lot of energy expressing our concerns, but also our love for the black box and so far from your comments I can only read a "Linux is a cancer" kind of attitude. If it is revenue concerns well I don't know what to say but Google is one of the most successful companies in the world selling a product based on open source software entirely. Thanks for your patience and goodwill driving this matter forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    It's fair to say that the sequencing workflow is not the strength of the blackbox. The first several rounds of updates focused on the sampling based on popular demand. That may very well change in the future. Thanks for asking.

    The Novation Circuit Tracks is great and I also love it. I have the previous version as well. It works well with our hardware.

    I appreciate that you believe open source is the answer. We see it differently. Thanks for the discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Georges
    commented on 's reply
    Speaking about the quest for novelty and about buying a device for what it currently does: the original recording menu back (pre-1.6) allowed for a much faster workflow. Now rolling back the firmware is an uncertain path at the additional cost of losing feature improvements.
Working...
X