IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to their release builds.
The telemetry in Audacity is behind both a build flag, and a runtime opt-in setting (although it was originally going to be opt-out, hence the uproar (I need to go fact-check this, it's been a while)).
So, if you install Audacity through your distro's package manager, you're probably not getting any telemetry, opt-in or otherwise.
With that in mind, I'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly. If I was a windows or macOS user, I might be interested in telemetry-free builds, and I'd be very thankful for anyone providing them, but I'm not sure why a whole fork is needed to do that.
Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have diverged significantly from upstream Audacity (simply from looking at commit counts and screenshots etc.), so it's apparently not a simple build-config-change and rebrand. However, the marketing blurb on https://tenacityaudio.org/ does not make it clear which features are distinct from upstream.
With Muse Group's ownership and Tantacrul/Martin Keary as Head of Product of Audacity [0][1], Audacity will be moving in a radically different direction from a UI/UX perspective. I happen to think this will be a good thing, and I happen to think that (opt-in) telemetry is a perfectly good way of ensuring that a consumer-facing open-source project doesn't just build for its loudest users, especially in the context of large interface redesigns. And with MuseScore 4, the creative team struck what I think is a great balance between streamlining the interface and avoiding the removal of complexity/advanced features.
But I can also see why a fork can and should diverge, for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the software. I hope the Tenacity project succeeds!
> for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the software.
As I recall, Tenacity started with some significant reworking of the development toolchain. But I get your point: that's not something end-users normally care about.
Not sure about Tenacity's situation, but there are certainly ways in which development toolchains can be reworked to lend themselves towards predictable performance and reliable release management!
While true, this doesn't mean slow-moving evolution of the project. A project can have predictable toolchain performance and reliable release management and rewrite the whole thing every six months.
Seems pretty reasonable actually. I remember that the situation was more arguable when there were the push backs against the privacy issue, The Muse seems to have responded appropriately to the criticisms.
The community split is unfortunate and sad but I sympathize with people wanting to avoid having to sign a CLA. One of the benefits of contributing to a GPL project without a CLA is that for the project to get rid of the GPL, it has to go out of its way asking for permission to every contributor or to remove the concerned code, which ensure your code does not risk ending up in a future, proprietary version of the project.
The reasons given for the existence of the CLA are reasonable too and I empathize (ability to release under GPLv3 and to release an version in Apple's App store, citing the example of VLC), but the CLA gives way too much right to The Muse which has all the rights to say "thank you, now we will actually make Audacity proprietary". Ideally its scope should be reduced.
The MuseScore 4 release is otherwise awesome (and we must credit them for this!), but they include a non-free (but gratis) optional sound renderer, Muse Sounds, and don't make it very clear they do it (edit: and Muse Hub too, same thing). They also encourage users to save their work in the cloud way too strongly.
I'm not interested in their cloud. I would be interested in Muse Sounds, but there is no way I'm going to start to rely on non-free software today. The whole point of MuseScore, besides it being beginner-friendly, is that's it's free software and Tantacrul sells this aspect very well in its first video about MuseScore by the way.
I actually told them my concerns about Muse Sounds at their FOSDEM stand after they asked me if I saw issues with the new version. Maybe if there are enough voices about this…
>They also encourage users to save their work in the cloud way too strongly.
I mean... I usually don't like those sorts of things either, but it's literally a window when you click save, before the main dialog, asking whether to save on the computer or their cloud, with a tick box if you want to skip and always save on the computer. Doesn't get much lighter than this, other than not having cloud integration at all... :)
Also worth pointing out that MuseSounds can only be installed via a proprietary (closed source) torrent client that has to be run with root privileges and runs in the background by default.
> I'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly.
A large part of it is mistrust of Muse, over the initial opt-out nature of the new telemetry and over other past decisions, unrelated to Audacity, that people have found questionable.¹ Fool me once, and all that.
> Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have diverged significantly from upstream Audacity
That in itself would be a reason, certainly from a dev's PoV, on top of that trust thing. If both projects fit what they want, but the downstream ones do it in a way they prefer, that is enough difference even if
> [sic] the marketing does not make clear the difference from upstream
implies that there is no major difference² from an end-users PoV³ at this point.
--
[1] I've not looked into the latter in much detail, my use of Audacity is so infrequent currently that I don't think I've updated (or, obviously, switched to something else) since before the hoo-hah.
[2] Yet, at least.
[3] beyond the telemetry and potential trust issues
> IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to their release builds.
Even more, Muse Group (owner of MuseScore and Audacity) is affiliated with Russia and has two offices in Kaliningrad and St.Petersburg, so for security reasons it better to not use those apps.[0]
> Another controversy in July 2021[1] resulted from a change to the privacy policy which said that although personal data was stored on servers in the European Economic Area, the program would "occasionally [be] required to share your personal data with our main office in Russia and our external counsel in the USA"[2]
No it isn't, it's a build config change which IMHO falls under the scope of package management/maintenance. The "Firefox" that runs on my system has a bunch of custom config tweaks and small source patches[1] applied by my distro/package maintainers to make it work with the rest of the system, and I don't call it a Firefox Fork.
Apparently, Audacity telemetry is now restricted to a self-hosted Sentry error reporting service, and to sending version info an IP address (anonymized to the first 3 octets) on update checks.
¹ It's a so-called "destructive" audio editor², and so is different than modern, "non-destructive" audio editors like GarageBand, Reaper, Descript, etc.
> ¹ It's a so-called "destructive" audio editor², and so is different than modern, "non-destructive" audio editors like GarageBand, Reaper, Descript, etc.
I have to say as someone who recently got into this space, the value that these non-destructive editors provide for their price is absurd. Reaper costs a mere one-time payment of $60 for individual use! That's ridiculous for the value you're getting.
Actually, Reaper's license expires after 2 major version steps, that is, if you purchase a license when the major version is x (currently it is 6.75) then you're licensed to use it until x+1.99 (now it would be 7.99).
Not to detract anything from Reaper's value: its license is one of the best everywhere, the cost is very affordable and the unlicensed product isn't crippled like others around. I have been licensed a while ago, and plan to purchase a new one as soon as I get back to making music. I would love a crowdfunding initiative to buy it from the creators with the purpose of open sourcing it, but the product quality is so high that even if possible it would likely cost a fortune.
I think regarding it as a one-time payment for individual use with free upgrades within the current and next major version is a reasonable use of the term 'one-time payment' in that while you can't upgrade any further after that the software still keeps working.
It seems to me that 'free upgrades forever' is honestly not a wise idea if you want to develop for your actual users rather than having to constantly try and attract more because any existing user will never pay you again.
So while I'm glad you mentioned the specifics, I don't think the 'Actually,' at the start was really deserved. (plus in general the quality of comments on the internet starting with 'Actually,' is terribad and what followed it in your case came as a welcome and pleasant surprise ;)
> It seems to me that 'free upgrades forever' is honestly not a wise idea if you want to develop for your actual users rather than having to constantly try and attract more because any existing user will never pay you again.
Funny you should mention that... Another one of those editors, FL Studio, has exactly that business model. It's not as cheap as a Reaper license, but they do advertise "free upgrades forever" and they're somehow in a good enough position that they bought out both Melda and UVI recently (the latter looks like a pretty big player in the software synth space).
The C-suite philosophy there is that new people are constantly entering both the hobby and business which is...well, entirely correct really. Honestly I'm glad that it's working out for them because it's an incredibly honest way of doing business, even if I don't use their software myself due to a couple long-standing limitations that hopefully they'll address soon.
I imagine a big portion of imagelines (FL studio) is through the extras they sell. You pay once for the software, but then you buy new sound packs and VSTs. It is a good model.
For Reaper's release schedule this is actually fantastically generous. I bought my license 6 years ago and it's still valid. I'm sure I only have a year or so left, but $60 for 7 years seems VERY fair.
I think the license lasts forever. You can use the version you bought (plus the upgrades promised at the time of purchase) forever. That's why the site continues to host older downloads.
If your right to use the software expired after some amount of time, then that would be closer to a subscription.
Two major versions is very generous. I wouldn't expect even a single free major upgrade to be honest, that's how it usually goes. Maybe a discount for existing customers.
Is there anything Audacity can do that the modern, "non-destructive" editors can't. Apart from ease of use and price is there any reason to use Audacity at all?
No, not in my opinion. Here are some alternatives I like to recommend, in alphabetical order:
• Adobe Audition is great. Its main drawback is Adobe's rental-only pricing model ($20/month), which kinda stinks unless you need Adobe CC anyway. (macOS/Win)
• If you're on a Mac, many incredibly-popular podcasts have been created with good ol' GarageBand. And if you ever outgrow GarageBand, projects can be "upgraded" to use Logic. (macOS)
• Hindenburg Journalist is unique, in that it's an audio editor designed especially for spoken-word productions. (macOS/Win)
• Presonus Studio One is wonderful and not known about by enough podcasters. There's a free Studio One Prime edition available. (macOS/Win)
• Reaper is an inexpensive and well-liked choice. The discounted license is only $60, but you can “try” it for free as long as you like. (macOS/Win)
I clicked your link, but I'm still unsure what that means. Does that mean it operates on the audio file directly? Or that it has no undo functionality? Or something else entirely?
It's the difference between making changes to the audio itself, and storing the changes as "now do this to the audio".
Similar to photoshop using layers to apply all the changes you've done (so you can undo particular ones easily/turn them on/off) and doing everything in the "flat" image space.
Or using git to track a file's changes vs just editing the file directly.
Photoshop is still a destructive editor, it just has layers to separate what you're destroying. Smart objects are the non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't really do a lot with them. A better example of a non-destructive photo editor would be Affinity Photo [0], which by design everything operates similar to a Photoshop smart object.
> Smart objects are the non-destructive way to do it in Photoshop, but you can't really do a lot with them.
And adjustment layers, right? And let's not forget that Photoshop also includes Camera Raw which is totally non-destructive and saves all changes in XMP (which is interchangeable with Lightroom).
it means that for certain operations/effects/filters/etc., once done the only way to get rid of them is to undo enough steps or to load a backup, in both cases loosing all of the subsequent changes.
With a nondestructive editor you can remove a change done several steps ago AND keep all of the changes done afterwards.
It's spelled out pretty directly: "if you delete something, save your progress, and close your project, you will never be able to restore what was deleted"
What you said may apply to both "non-destructive" and "destructive" editors just as well. A better example would be "if you add reverb to your track, save your progress and close your project, you won't be able to unreverb it". With "non-destructive" editor, all you did was to add a flag that your track should have a reverb added to it, so you can easily disable or adjust parameters of your reverb afterwards without having to rely on undo.
A "destructive" editor is just an editor. Your text editor is a "destructive" editor. A "non-destructive" editor does no editing, and instead stores (in a separate file) a sequence of patches to apply to the original file, resulting in your desired output. This isn't really editing, but the industry didn't do a good job at naming this stuff.
I think it operates on the absolute state of the audio where e.g. Reaper uses deltas - your current result is simply all of the deltas applied on after the other so it is easy to go back with each change by just removing a delta from the sequence.
Quite similar to e.g. Event Sourcing vs your regular source of truth in the DB
DAWs (digital audio workstations) edit by using metadata. Suppose you have an audio file that is 2 minutes long. You start using it in the application. The application notes "we have 2 minutes of audio, taken from the start of this file". Now if you "delete" the last minute of the file, nothing is done to the file, but the "metadata" inside the DAW now says "we have 1 minute of audio, taken from the start of this file".
If you then copy 20 seconds from the middle of that section, the DAW refers to this with metadata essentially saying "20 seconds of audio starting 20 seconds into this file".
Nothing is ever done to change the contents of the actual file.
I think the description of metadata is good (my mental model is that a DAW operates on a stacked-up pile of operations to apply on top of the sources, and editing is all just adding/removing/modifying the parameters of those operations, which I think is equivalent to what you're saying), but the simple "doesn't change the contents of the actual file" standard I'm not sure is so useful. It would sweep up old Audacity and something like GIMP into the "nondestructive" pile just by virtue of each operating on a model where pre-existing source files get imported into the tool's native format and have to be exported back out.
Edit a WAV or JPEG with either of those and they'll dutifully not touch the source file (unless/until you tell them to export on top of it) despite internally operating directly on the data. (I think both have moved and are moving to offer more nondestructive modes of operation, but speaking of their legacy setups, anyway).
The descriptions seem equivalent, to me. I tend to think of it as: a "source" is either raw audio, or the result of applying a parameterised filter to zero or more sources.
The reason it's not equivalent to me is that the concept of "a series of deltas" does not make clear that what is edited (with or without a delta model) is metadata. No DAW ever edits an audio file (except for a few specific operations where the user explicitly requests that). All the edits are carried out on metadata (some would call them an EDL - edit decision list; some would use other names). But the delta model is orthogonal to this.
> No DAW ever edits an audio file (except for a few specific operations where the user explicitly requests that).
This feels like semantics. No self-respecting DAW will overwrite your source files, but the DAW's project file is, technically, an audio file. And here's a 30-second video file:
A = BlankClip()
B = A.Subtitle("Hello, world!")
Dissolve(A, B, 30)
You're using "audio file" in a ___domain-specific way. The common meaning of "audio file" is "a file that contains audio": a .aup file is an audio file, just the same as a GarageBand project is, to a room full of 14-year-old amateur musicians.
when i was a 14 (or even 12) year old amateur musician it was very obvious to me that DAW projects weren't audio files, I have never ever seen anyone saying this except your post across all my childhood friends who were dabbling with "artisanal" versions of FL studio, cubase SX, etc etc
The people I'm referring to were using GarageBand, MIDI, wav, mp3, and Musescore in the same kinds of sentences, and talked about converting between them. They also talked about importing into Sibelius and GarageBand. "Convert it [Musescore] to Sibelius" feels like it was about as common as "import the [Musescore] file into Sibelius". (And no, they hadn't heard of Lilypond.) Maybe I misunderstood what they meant. They were predominantly "play on an actual physical instrument"-type people, not tracker enthusiasts: without adult influence, perhaps two people present would have been using computer software at all. (Manuscript paper for everyone, except the one kid who only knew tab.)
Regardless, seems I'm the one with the uncommon use of language, here.
Probably didn't think of it. If you were using Audacium it's because you were looking for Audacity forks in general, so you would already know about Tenacity too.
Why is error reporting telemetry bad?
Im really lost at why this is such a big deal. They're not collecting personal info. They are just looking to make the product better.
Audacity chose to make itself free. It had nothing to do with me. I don't owe them anything for that. Giving someone a gift does not entitle you to a gift of your choice in return.
They aren't though. You say "help debug it" as if you are actually lifting a finger to help. In reality, you have a problem that a company provides you an app for free and wants your anonymous data to help improve it. Something that cost you nothing in terms of time or money. Also something you can opt out of if you find that agreement disagreeable for whatever reason.
> In reality, you have a problem that a company provides you an app for free and wants your anonymous data to help improve it.
No, in reality, you have a company that bought the branding of a piece of free software. They didn't make Audacity. They contributed to versions 3.0 through 3.2.1 (which I've, personally, never used). They had nothing to do with the award-winning version 1.3.x, nor anything up to 2.4.2.
I'm not against companies taking on the maintenance of free software projects – provided it's not an Embrace Extend Extinguish ruse –, but throwing money around wouldn't entitle one to claim credit. (I'm not aware of Muse Group claiming credit for Audacity, but if anyone is pulling a stunt like that, I would like to write them a strongly-worded letter.)
If my data is valuable to them they can pay me for it.
And don't forget this company initially tried to ship telemetry-by-default in this software before there was backlash. They retreated to a reasonable compromise, but in no way are they entitled to a single byte of my data. I owe them nothing. I did not compel them to "provide me an app for free," not only because that app existed long before they bought its branding, but also because I had no voice in their licensing policy.
If they want to amend their license to require telemetry, they may do so, and I will stop using the software. But never, ever, as long as I live, will I owe them shit.
they aren't entitled to your data as much as you are entitled to complain about something free that people spent countless hours working on it.
nobody is forcing you to use it, but you could still ask a refund as the free program that nobody forced you to use has added something that you don't agree with.
As has been repeatedly argued in cases of IP-rights-holders-vs-sharers, an IP address on its own does not identify an individual. We argue that both ways depending on what suits us at the time, or we are as bad as the music industry flipping between “you bought the CD” and “you licensed the music” when it suits them to.
This is only true in certain jurisdictions. The GDPR recitals specifically mention IP addresses as examples of personal data:
> Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers or other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave traces which, in particular when combined with unique identifiers and other information received by the servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural persons and identify them.
My take: An IP address is usually not, in fact almost always not, PII on its own, but there are circumstances where it is part of a package of data that is PII, and others where it could be considered “circumstantial PII”.
Could anyone familiar with this add something about Audacium to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audacity_(audio_editor) if it's significant to its history? I tried to understand what happened and if there was a fork but couldn't.
The telemetry in Audacity is behind both a build flag, and a runtime opt-in setting (although it was originally going to be opt-out, hence the uproar (I need to go fact-check this, it's been a while)).
So, if you install Audacity through your distro's package manager, you're probably not getting any telemetry, opt-in or otherwise.
With that in mind, I'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly. If I was a windows or macOS user, I might be interested in telemetry-free builds, and I'd be very thankful for anyone providing them, but I'm not sure why a whole fork is needed to do that.
Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have diverged significantly from upstream Audacity (simply from looking at commit counts and screenshots etc.), so it's apparently not a simple build-config-change and rebrand. However, the marketing blurb on https://tenacityaudio.org/ does not make it clear which features are distinct from upstream.
Edit: You can read about the telemetry options currently present in Audacity here: https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/