Audacity is a poster child for what can be achieved with open-source software

The quality of software the FOSS community has created is nothing short of amazing. Not only do we have a complete operating system capable of running on nearly any hardware money can buy, but we have some of the best document, photo, music, and video-editing software available on any platform. This embarrassment of riches …

[karlkarl]

It should be emphasized that for many of us open-source users, it is not about the cost or getting something for free. Likely we have actually spent more money on things like compatible hardware and time retraining on non-proprietary software.

Open-source is currently one of the only ways to ensure we can get away from broken systems such as DRM, telemetry and adverts. With some of their recent strategies, Audacity seems to be treading on thin ice. They seem passionate about data collection. They have also shown that they are even happy to ban under 13 year olds from using their software just so they can comply with this.

https://fosspost.org/audacity-is-now-a-spyware/

So no. I am (and many other open-source users are) very happy to pay money. If someone starts a fork, I will gladly contribute financially. This kind of scummy crap is exactly what we were trying to get away from. The rest of us FOSS developers keep our software clean and usable. We expect the same courtesy from the Audacity team. Without many of us and our open-source software, their business wouldn't even exist.

[Jon Massey]

"Audacity is now a spyware" - don't be ridiculous

[GrumpenKraut]

In https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ I find the following.

"Why we collect: For legal enforcement; Personal Data we collect: Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities' requests (if any); Legal grounds for processing: Legitimate interests of WSM Group to defend its legal rights and interests."

This is not acceptable at all. Funny I had to type the text above, it is an image on the web site.

[Jon Massey]

"In upcoming Audacity releases, the only information sent by default is:

IP address (unavoidable): (e.g. "123.45.67.89").

User-Agent string: (e.g. "Audacity/3.0.3 (Windows 10_0_19042; x64)")

This occurs during a check for updates and can be disabled in Preferences at any time. "

If you're wetting the bed over a UA and an IP address being sent as part of an update check that can be disabled then you need to have a serious look at yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

All those downvotes - LOL, I guess they can not be from anyone who uses Google.

[TheFifth]

First, let me say that I don't agree with tracking within Audacity.

However, I find it somewhat ironic that fosspost.org are complaining about it when a quick look at the source of their website shows links to Google Syndicate APIs, Google Fonts, one pixel tracking images and various other tracking scripts from Wordpress.com.

A quick read through their privacy policy includes:

We have Google analytics and WordPress.com tracking scripts set up on our websites.

Along with the reassuring words:

Some of your information are shared with 3rd-party services such as Google Adsense, Google Analytics, WordPress.com and some other plugin developers or service providers we use. Those services use this data to display certain ads for you or track where you are coming from or enhance your experience on our website.

And finally, the classic:

All logs, emails, comments forms or any other data collected about you when you visit our websites are stored indefinitely.

Maybe look a little closer to home first fosspost.org...

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be said that fosspost.org is a webpage (the web is basically a lost cause already). Audacity is an offline music editing tool where us FOSS fans still try to maintain ethical standards.

[TheFifth]

Web pages don't have to be a lost cause and I don't think we should accept that they are. Why should we accept being tracked online any more than we accept it offline? You can make the excuse about improving the experience for users (which I've never seen it used for) or just be honest and say that it brings in money that is needed to keep the lights on. That's fine, but it should be done in a privacy preserving way (if at all possible).

Audacity have said they will not use Google, Yandex or any other third party (admittedly after a backlash), won't share the data with third parties unless legally obliged to do so, and will default to telemetry off in the app. Ironically, this data might actually be used to improve the project, unlike the generic 'help us provide a better experience' statements in website privacy policies.

The 'For legal enforcement' is a bit of a worry, but I'm betting that's been put their as an arse covering exercise by the lawyers and I'd also bet that it's nothing more than the data they are collecting for the app analytics mentioned above. Everyone has to abide by the laws of their particular jurisdiction and being a FOSS project doesn't remove that obligation. But if that worries you, just leave the telemetry button in the default opt-out position. Honestly though, it's open source. Anyone can check what is being sent and I guarantee that if it's sending anything more, it will be spotted in a nanosecond.

If fosspost.org genuinely stood behind the 'holier than thou' attitude they display in their post about Audacity, they could easily remove all of the tracking on their site and replace it with logging that doesn't leave their server.

I completely understand that it's a complex subject with nuance, legal requirements and budgetary considerations. But reading the fossproject.org post, you'd think it was a black and white matter. It's just ironic they don't hold themselves to the same high standards they hold everyone else to.

The hypocrisy just left a bad taste, so I felt I had to comment.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use someone elses computer, they can honestly do what they want. That is basically what a web application (and the entire cloud) is. Someone elses computer.

When I run code on my own computer, I am inclined to believe someone else cannot do what they want with my computer. Otherwise it is spyware. Or at least malware.

[TheFifth]

I agree, they can do whatever they like. But it might be an idea to not to be so 'pearl-clutching' about privacy when you don't have any respect for the privacy of your readers.

Audacity doesn't share anything by default and as you say, it runs on your computer, so you can choose not to install it. But most importantly you have the ability to turn telemetry on and off, so they aren't doing 'what they want' with your computer. You still have control and you can also check exactly what it sends as the source is open.

Beyond not reading the content, I see no such option on fosspost.org. As soon as you arrive at the page, you're being tracked in a far more insidious way than Audacity does. As I say though, I completely understand why websites do this, but it was just the sheer level of hypocrisy that rattled me.

From a personal perspective, I develop web applications for a living. Not normally customer facing stuff, but when I do, I try to steer clients away from using Google or other third parties for tracking. Most of them just want to know how many 'hits' each page has anyway, which server side analytics can cover without stuffing the page full of javascript or sharing customer data. If they need to track a customer 'journey' I can normally put something in place that can do that for them without resorting to sharing data with a third party. Google Analytics is often overkill for the features people will use or need, but they've heard of it, so they want it. Obviously I know doing this is a drop in the ocean, but at least I'm trying.

[six_tymes]

well said, so I'll ask, now that it has been bought out, do you believe it will remain free of DRM, telemetry and adverts ?? I doubt it, especially considering the way the new owner comes off, he sounds like a bs'ing salesman. I give it one year at most, then, it'll have adverts, DRM, and telemetry. Bye bye Audacity.

[TheProf]

And now a word

Nice review of Muse Group there.

It left me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And now a word

A bit shameless, right? I particularly enjoyed the link to a 2015 post about FOSS video editing software.

[elsergiovolador]

Workers

I would be interested whether workers making this product are going to be paid fair wages?

Or as in the spirit of FOSS, big companies can use it as a loophole for obtaining free labour?

Sorry, I mean FOSS currency is exposure, workers get paid in exposure!

> There may be some paid external features down the road – think cloud storage and the like

Oh and the classic data grab.

[PassiveSmoking]

Re: Workers

There are plenty of open source software developers that operate as for-profit software companies with full-time paid developers on staff. FOSS has moved past its hobbiest beginnings a long time ago.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Workers

Just because there is a few companies (and let's face it, these developers are paid nowhere near they should be anyway), it does not mean FOSS does not facilitate workers' exploitation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad Timing

Didn't they literally just update Audacity's privacy policy last Friday to say they're going to collect user info and telemetry after all, and that they're going to use it for vaguely worded "legal enforcement" and to sell to any potential buyers?

This article seems like it was either written last week and only just published now, or it's damage control.

[PTW]

Today's article...

Bought to you by the Muse Group.

* you missed the sponsored tag

[JudeK]

Re: Today's article...

"* you missed the sponsored tag"

No, we did not. The feature is a response to the project's growth over many years before Muse entered the picture.

Please don't accuse us of running sponsored copy as editorial – paid-for articles are clearly marked.

[Dabooka]

Weird article this

I'm not really sure what its purpose or intention is. No real analysis of the decision, the backtrack, the recent announcements, the potential fallout (other than the mention of a fork). Just seems somewhat incomplete?

Written as someone who only ever uses Audacity to rip my vinyl to flac.

[Version 1.0]

Re: Weird article this

And the article says, "a user interface that dates back to Windows 98" ... yes it does, but it's very easy to use and very reliable. It's worth noting that you can rip an old 45 that has been sitting on your coffee table for thirty years as a place mat and Audacity has the ability to generate an excellent audio copy.

I've ripped my grandfathers jazz and blues 78's (played for years with thorn needles) and got better results than some CD's I've bought over the years of records that old.

[Pascal Monett]

Calm down, people

It would appear that, although telemetry is indeed included, it is optional and disabled by default.

Now, I'm just as annoyed by any telemtry at all as everyone else, but hey, if you have to opt-in (contrary to many), then it's basically not there.

Let's not burn something to the stake if it isn't actively trying to track us, okay ? Now, if it happens that somebody finds out that this is all a lie and Audacity is tracking whether you opt in or not, then I will gladly light the fire myself. In the mean time, let's not get all riled up over not much, shall we ?

[Alumoi]

Re: Calm down, people

It would appear that, although telemetry is indeed included, it is optional and disabled by default until the next update which will silently opt you in. For your convenience, of course.

After all, there are not many paranoids out there who, like me, the first thing they check after any kind of upgrade is the privacy/telemetry/ads setting (thank you Micrososft for teaching me a valuable lesson).

[Aussie Doc]

Re: Calm down, people

Absolutely.

After each Windows update I re-run OOSHUTUP10 and am constantly annoyed at how many settings MS has the cheek to 'restore' on my behalf.

Drive you to drink ----------------->

[Wade Burchette]

Re: Calm down, people

You don't win by appeasement. If you give an inch, people will take a mile. So what is optional today will be mandatory tomorrow. That is, unless you fight back now and hard.

[BillG]

Re: Calm down, people

...what is optional today will be mandatory tomorrow...

The mantra of Microsoft, Google, etc. We've seen this before. They don't take away all your privacy all at once, it's done in steps, like boiling a frog.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Calm down, people

> it is optional and disabled by default.

That's how it works. They need to insert the instrument gently, with a great amount of PR lube and then at night, when nobody is going to look and expect, they'll start pounding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Calm down, people

OK, if that's happening then it must be an Android app.

[_LC_]

Fork

Audacity could use a thorough overhaul anyhow, considering that Audacity was created when chips only had a single core. We now got 4-16 and threading with Audacity mostly ignoring all but one.

[jemmyww]

I didn't know

I didn't know the same group owned musescore and ultimate guitar. Both of which I pay for, I wonder if they have a bundle discount. Anyway I've enjoyed Tantacrul's videos, including the ones where he rips into the UI design of score software, including musescore. I assume they hired him after that to fix it.

[katrinab]

Re: I didn't know

They did, yes.

[45RPM]

Two points, and neither detract from my opinion of Audacity which is great software.

1. As a software developer who likes to have somewhere to sleep at night and who likes to have food to eat, I object strongly to the idea that software should be cheap or free. As a highly skilled developer who works with highly skilled developers I’d like to be paid accordingly. Nor do I want to be in the position of having to work for projects sponsored by the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon etc in order to get paid.

2. Audacity is great in terms of its functionality, but it’s ugly as sin. The same is true of most open source - it lacks oversight in terms of its UI and it suffers for it. Most of the stuff which looks good is a community edition of a commercial package (IntelliJ springs to mind, Visual Studio Code etc). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, and maybe I’m just weird. I do like a spot of consistency in my UIs though.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. then don't do it, work for monies

2. meh

3. wat's your point?

[elsergiovolador]

> 1. then don't do it, work for monies

Then you leave the FOSS space for privileged people who can afford to work for free. Way to create a social divide where people from poor background can't show exposure points on their CV, that they worked on FOSS projects, because they cannot afford to do that!

I think regulator should step in and make certain clauses in the licenses illegal and express in the law that companies that use FOSS need to pay contributors fair wages regardless of the license.

[Adair]

'...the idea that software should be cheap or free.'

'Should' is your problem. How about 'may be' or 'can be'? FLOSS is principally about the freedom to choose.

You want to have people pay for your work - excellent, go for it. You are under no obligation to work for free, or to release your software at no financial cost to users.

Other people make other choices.

What's your problem?

[45RPM]

The problem is that it’s a race to the bottom in terms of pricing. If the majority are happy to have free software (paid for, perhaps, by invasion of privacy), how to software developers who want to write quality software, free of influence, get paid? They’re priced out of the market. They’d have to raise their prices to a prohibitive level - such that no one could afford it. And then what choice do consumers have? It’s free, and spying, or nothing.

[GrumpenKraut]

Vendors of commercial software used to fight against FOSS because they did fear what you seem to fear. The last three decades showed that they did worry with no good reason. Commercial software will never go away and even more money will be made selling or renting it.

You can give software away for free and still make good money, by selling support contracts. See Suse, Redhat, and probably a lot of other firms.

[_LC_]

Race to the bottom on all levels

You may have noticed that this is part of the system. If you do something good, you get punished. If you do horrible stuff, they reward you. If you lie, you get on TV to tell the “news”. When instead you tell the truth, you'll get fired, your bank account and apartment canceled, your YouTube and Twitter channels deleted and lots of death threats by phone and letter. ;-{

Seriously, if you don't use software commercially you shouldn't have to pay for it. People will always use the “good enough” free solution, unless they actually make money with it or have plenty of dough to spare.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Race to the bottom on all levels

So, I don't have to pay for games because I don't use them commercially? Sign me up!

[Doctor Syntax]

" If the majority are happy to have free software (paid for, perhaps, by invasion of privacy)"

Linux. Windows.

Which is free (as in beer as well as in freedom)?

Which invades privacy?

[eldakka]

> If the majority are happy to have free software (paid for, perhaps, by invasion of privacy), how to software developers who want to write quality software, free of influence, get paid?

Write software that people are willing to pay for?

No different than any other market, if you can't produce a product that people are wiling to pay for, that isn't enough better than other competing products such that people will pay for it, that's your problem.

[Loud Speaker]

how to software developes ... get paid?

I have written freeware, including for commercial organisations.

Typically, I, or my employers, want some software. I write it. It solves the immediate problem - but it needs maintenance, and solves a generic problem.

Simples, as my meerkat says (if suitably bribed), I release it as Open Source.

Other people download and use it, but they need bug fixes and/or extra features, so they provide them themselves.

One day, it becomes a major league world beating something.

Or not. See if I care.

[Adair]

No where is it written in stone that software must be paid for, or that it must be available free of charge.

You or I can write a book. If we want to make it freely available we can release it, with or without some form of attribution license, for zero charge. OTOH, we may feel we deserve/need some financial reward for our labours, but likewise the licence by which that work is made available for money is up to us (and our publisher).

In either case - 'free' or 'paid for' - there is a cost, both to the user and to the producer. It simply depends on what cost you are willing to accept to make your work available to others, and, in both cases, what conditions are legally applied to the usage of the work.

The only 'problem' is when people decide to enforce their particular agenda on others, so that a perfectly valid choice is denied, e.g. 'All software must be paid for', or 'All software must be available at no financial cost to the user'. Both positions are ethically/morally selfish.

[elsergiovolador]

> 'All software must be paid for', or 'All software must be available at no financial cost to the user'. Both positions are ethically/morally selfish.

It's a wrong way to look at it. I'd say that all developers have to be compensated, which is not the case in terms of FOSS. It's a loophole that big corporations use to obtain free labour and R&D.

[Adair]

Why do 'all developers have to be compensated'? Presumably you mean 'compensated via payment of money'. That is a very narrow/reductionist view of 'compensated'.

Am I not entitled to choose to release my code gratis, or however else I please?

If someone else doesn't approve of that choice, who are they to complain? I may not approve of their choice to charge for their work - what is that to them?

If neither party is doing anything 'illegal' then 'the Law' has no interest in either case.

Are people not free (within the scope of what society allows) to choose how they will dispose of the fruits of their labour for use by other people?

[elsergiovolador]

> Am I not entitled to choose to release my code gratis, or however else I please?

You cannot do many things, for example you cannot work for a for-profit company without compensation.

This is to give people equal chances.

You see when internships were unpaid, only people from richer families were able to do those, because their parents could pay their bills and so on. People whose parents couldn't afford that or they themselves couldn't were missing out.

That lead to situation when only those people from middle class and up worked at certain places - and as a result you got increase in social divide.

That's why you no longer can work for free, unless it's a charity or something like that.

> Am I not entitled to choose to release my code gratis, or however else I please?

So given above, yes you shouldn't be entitled to show off your privilege this way.

[Adair]

Of course I can 'work for free', so long as I am free to make that choice. There is no law that denies me that right.

Likewise, I am free to release my code at no financial cost to the user, although I may choose to impose a usage licence, which is a 'cost' to the user. There is no law that says I cannot do this.

You have taken a particular situation and used it to impose a general rule, which simply isn't true. So, what is your agenda? What are you afraid of?

Presumably you are concerned that a commercial outfit, having invested heavily in producing some piece of software, can see its market evaporate because some bunch of 'hippies' allow their code to be available for 'free'.

Wow, who gave the commercial outfit a 'right' to own its market? No one. If I choose to monetise a particular 'market opportunity', good luck to me, but I have no right to 'own' that market, and if someone else comes along with a 'better' product that's just my tough luck. I will need to go away and think again. The fact that the 'better' product is better because it costs the user no money is irrelevant, and you/I have no business complaining. I am quite entitled to produce a 'better' product that in terms of capability and customer service is well worth the financial cost of owning, compared to the 'free' product. How the producers of the 'free' product choose to actually earn their living is up to them.

[Doctor Syntax]

Nobody is kidnapping devs off the street and sending them into the salt mines.

At one extreme is a group of people, maybe starting with one individual, who have a need for a particular piece of software which isn't met by anything or, at least anything they can afford and decide to cooperate to write their own. By cooperating they can produce something better than each doing their thing. They are not being paid* - that comes from their day jobs - but nevertheless they're getting something for it: they're getting the application they wanted for themselves and are prepared to share it.

At the other extreme are developers working for hardware makers such as Intel. They're producing the sort of drivers and other support software that turns the company's products from inert tim or silicon into working systems that customers are willing to buy. I've no idea what they're paid but I assume it isn't just pizza and Coke as long as they're in the office. Some of them may also be in the first group in their spare time.

Somewhere in the middle there are businesses that happen to need something in the same way that the individuals in the first group but not as a product but as something to support their operation and see the benefit of cooperating to produce it although in other respects they may be in competition. Again, nobody's suggesting that the employees who work on it aren't being paid proper salaries.

Try exercising your favourite search engine to find who develops Linux; there are a number of annual reports. The many individual contributors (and that includes those whose affiliations aren't known but some of whom might be contributing on behalf of an employer) collectively are about the same order of magnitude as several of the corporate contributors.

* This dreadful word "compensated" really doesn't fit. It's just puffed up language in this usage. It really means something other than a salary or wage despite being used that way. Used in this way it's the typical PR-speak used to make it seem that highly paid execs are being compensated for the hardship of their distasteful labours.

[Gene Cash]

> They’d have to raise their prices to a prohibitive level

I don't see how this follows. A particular piece of software's price point has absolutely nothing to do with FOSS. If you write a $150 CAD program, you just better have $150 worth of features over OpenSCAD or FreeCAD. I'd pay $150 for FreeCAD where it didn't crash and all the menu options worked.

I pay for stuff that's useful, at a decent price, and doesn't treat me like shit.

For example, I'd pay to have someone clean up GIMP and give it a working UI. Hell, I'd even buy Photoshop IF I STILL HAD THE OPTION. But you no longer buy Photoshop... you rent it. No thanks.

I don't buy Windows or other Microsoft products because they're poorly designed, inflexible, and crash often, in addition to the telemetry in the latest versions. I happen to have a copy I'm forced to run in a VM for work.

[jemmyww]

Well you can't force them to take your money. The new owners run some subscription services and your get to use their complementary software for free, so you can pay for it... but only if you want to access the online portion. The muse group had some interesting backstory that makes me think it unlikely they'd creep paid features into audacity.

I've noticed that paid native software doesn't compete that well against the OSS alternatives over the long game, and I don't think it's because of the money aspect. It seems like your either need a community to keep it going, or be a very large player like MS or Adobe. Look at the alternatives for production music. I've used a couple. They really seem to be suffering from rot, the distributors have a hard time keeping them up to date, they wreck your computer when you install them. The OSS versions start small and crappy but they die early or grow and grow and eventually have so many contributors they can easily navigate updates, new and/or niche platforms and products.

Also UI... someone sent me a garageband file the other day. The interface in there was not obvious. I wanted to zoom in and out and make a selection and it took awhile to figure out it was a really small area I had to hit. It looks very nice but that doesn't mean it's good and looking clunky doesn't mean it's bad.

[FuzzyTheBear]

Telemetry

From the article .. they backed up on this and well .. it's good. Some things i don't object to is for example Firefox crash reporting. It does help. So for say audacity crashes and they have a reporting system for the crashes , fine. That might help the programmers. If something's wrong and they have bug reports automated with our consent ( ex send button ) all fine.

Same applies to functions. Ex plugins. What's the most popular plugin ? What is the most used functions ? If you got that as an opt in , what's the harm ?

For one i don't beleive that this pauses a threat at all to privacy. What's the problem ? I don't see any.

What i'd highly object to is my files getting copied to a remote server , names of the files , details that are of no importance whatsoever to develoopers.

There's some good and some bad in this. I don't object to participate in this fashion at all. If it helps make the software better .. im ok with it.

What i do object to is if data i'm working on is in any shape or form transmitted down the line.

That i don't want to see.

[GrumpenKraut]

Re: Telemetry

> For one i don't beleive that this pauses a threat at all to privacy. What's the problem ? I don't see any.

One reason for and usage of telemetry they list goes like this: "Why we collect: For legal enforcement; Personal Data we collect: Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities' requests (if any); Legal grounds for processing: Legitimate interests of WSM Group to defend its legal rights and interests."

Not a problem, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"we're going to help make this awesome project more awesome"

as I read this, given the context (the register) I took it as an over-uber-super-extram-mega sarky start of barrage against the latest audacity 'developments (in a broad sense of this word), but then, the more I read, the less I was sure of my initial (instinctive?) reaction was correct. I just hope my instincts were right, and it is just my lack of in-depth (or any depth) knowledge on the subject, that makes me miss the 'whoosh'...

[PassiveSmoking]

Huh?

Wow, this is an exceptionally bad piece of journalism from El Reg. Right when the rest of the web is coming to the realisation that Audacity's new overlords are turning its new acquisition into spyware, you publish this thing blowing smoke up their butts. This is not what I've come to expect from you guys.

[JudeK]

Re: Huh?

We know about the update - you'll see something on it soon

[hittitezombie]

Quite an achievement

This article must have broken records in 'This didn't age well' category!

[Tim 49]

You can always tell a Yorkshireman*

"...there were some very fundamental changes in the 3.0 release including a new file format called .aup3."

* but you can't tell him very much.

[carl0s]

Ultimate guitar is basically a scam site that has licensed "permission" to host user created guitar tabs. It's full of "download pdf" links that don't give you a pdf, but in fact try to make you install their app. They also used to give fake 5 star ratings to duplicates of guitar-pro (gp4/gp5) files and present them as 5 star rated app-only files. Except that they were just the existing 3 star rated free to use public guitar pro files that you can download and use in either guitar pro or tuxguitar (free). The rating was fake and the idea was to coerce you into downloading their app, again. There was no indication that it was just the GP file duplicated and given a fake 5 star rating.

In fact, good luck trying to browse tabs on their site from a mobile device, unless you try to trick the site by setting 'desktop mode, on your mobile device.

I don't care for this company at all. Shady A.F.

[Glitterball]

Audacity is by no means a 'Poster Child' for what can be achieved with open source. It does not even do what proprietary audio editors could do more than 20 years ago! The interface also leaves a lot to be desired.

One of the most basic functions of an Audio Editor is to be able to use real-time effects such as EQ and Compression, without these tools, the software is equivalent of a basic text editor without spellcheck, thesaurus or syntax highlighting.

Software such as Steinberg Wavelab had these real-time effects 23 years ago, and it should be pointed out that Wavelab is largely the work of a single developer. As the writer points out, software such as Ardour is probably too complex for someone who just wants to make a few edits to an audio file, however there are many free (if not open source) audio editors that are much better than Audacity (not for Linux though).

I was a Sound Engineer for many years (back when there was a music industry), and I have used Linux as my primary desktop for the last 15 years, so I feel qualified to point out the failings of FOSS in this area - as the writer points out, for the most part the free software available for Linux is amazing, however Audio is still a weak point.

[iron]

Devs love telemetry

> Telemetry is a touchy subject. Developers like it because they get data about how users are using the app, but users dislike it because it's a form of tracking.

Actually Devs don't love telemetry because it invades our privacy when we are users and prevents some users using the fruits of our hard labour.

Management love telemetry = yup

Marketing love telemetry = yup

Accounts love telemetry = yup

Devs? Not so much.

[Psmo]

Re: Devs love telemetry

Plenty of examples of obscure crashes that are only able to be analysed by looking at logs and telemetry data.

If you're expected to fix any piece of work dependent on data or an environment you do not control and have not specified, you need telemetry; at least a log, memory dump, flight data recorder or crash file to look at, otherwise you have to guess.

[DrXym]

It's an example of foot in mouth syndrome

Audacity should have left its license alone and the new owners should have demonstrated some good faith by adding features and showing users were in a safe pair of hands. All this BS over user agreements & data collection (even if it is for benign reasons) is leading to sensational news headlines and making the likelihood of a fork inevitable.

[jheronimus]

Advertorial or not... yikes

"With any luck, Audacity will soon be what we users have long loved about it – a powerful, easy-to-use audio editor,"

How did an editor let this contradictory line through? Audacity is still a powerful, easy-to-use audio editor, as Scott Gilbertson simultaneously claims and denies with this bizarre doublespeak. Audacity has not changed much in eight years because it is still one of the easiest to use DAWs available!

It would be interesting if Audacity had more robust MIDI DAW functionality (which would warrant VST plugins), but the fact that Scott goes on about VSTs leads me to believe he has never actually used Audacity for audio engineering or editing... as Audacity is not the first tool you would reach for to record via MIDI. I am speaking as someone who has used Audacity professionally in my workflow for more than 10 years. Perhaps Scott wrote this piece after an undisclosed background interview?

Really disappointed in this as I am used to better quality from Scott; it is not surprising that so many users are accusing the vulture newsroom of profiting off of this piece. Reads to me more like the team is trying to help out an embattled friend while their friend's deep-pocketed company mishandles one of the greatest FOSS projects in software history.

"We cannot allow the fact that we accept contributions from the community to become a disadvantage that prevents us from using our code in other products." - Daniel Ray, head of strategy, attempting to defend Muse's handling of Audacity (GPL software) while simultaneously claiming supreme ownership over it.

In mother Russia, software develops you!

[zapgadget]

How did they 'acquire' it?

Just how did Muse Group 'aquire' Audacity. It's open source. What did they purchase? From whom?