Little Phatty OS as Open Source

perault · Post by **perault** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:36 pm

I wonder what would happen if the Little Phatty OS was released as open source.

I for one would be very interested in helping out with the development to learn more about the inside of this fantastic piece of gear. Surely there are other LP owners who are knowledgeable in computer programming. Right?

Effectively this forum already works a bit like a Free/OSS community feeding bug reports and feature requests back to Moog. I wonder though if we couldn't do more.

Imagine if Moog were to release an SDK with a virtual environment for us all to experiment with new features. That would be quite cool, don't you think? Of course they would still decide on what goes into each official release.

Potentially it could free up some resources for the Moog engineers to work on new fabulous hardware if we took collective care of the software.

Just a thought.

Portamental · Post by **Portamental** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:41 am

Brrrrrr... my programmer's body shivers at the thought! No offense.

jon_kull · Post by **jon_kull** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:19 pm

I would love it if all manufacturers would do this after a synth goes out of production and is no longer being supported. Since Moog still supports the LP I don't see it happening. Well I don't see it happening after they stop supporting it either.

perault · Post by **perault** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:54 pm

I wonder, Portamental, if that might not just be that old "itch worth scratching" you feel

Seriously, I realise it could prove problematic but as far as I understand it all depends on how it's done.

And yes, jon_kull, it would definitely help a lot if synth manufacturers open sourced rather than stopped supporting. However, I think hardware companies, such as Lego and others, have learned that doing it much earlier than that can be exactly what is needed to turn a great product into a fantastic one. If you don't earn money on software per se, why spend money on developing it if your users can and will do it for free?

As I see it, it's not about Moog not supporting the LP, which they do, and do very well. On the contrary, it's about leveraging the innovative potential in the combination of a great company, a great product and a great user community.

But yea, you're probably right. It most certainly will not happen.

Bryan T · Post by **Bryan T** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:20 pm

I'm opposed to the idea, as I think Moog's competitors would benefit from it.

Yet I'm attracted to the idea, as maybe users could start improving other products, like the MP-201.

jon_kull · Post by **jon_kull** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:37 pm

perault wrote:If you don't earn money on software per se, why spend money on developing it if your users can and will do it for free?

I don't know...off the top of my head...Consistency between units. Good documentation. Having a product that works as advertised. Not being forced to provide support for something being used in a way you didn't intend for it to be used.

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:18 pm

jon_kull wrote: I don't know...off the top of my head...Consistency between units. Good documentation. Having a product that works as advertised. Not being forced to provide support for something being used in a way you didn't intend for it to be used.

I was thinking along these lines as well. However, if the OS was open source, you would have various versions of the OS available, and could pick and choose features as needed. Like Bryan T, I am torn as to whether or not this would be a good idea.

Portamental · Post by **Portamental** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:26 am

perault wrote:Seriously, I realise it could prove problematic but as far as I understand it all depends on how it's done.

That was not my main point. Actually there was no main point in my one-liner. Granted, there is a lot of talent in the Open source community. Some people think Open source is a God's sent gift to the computer industry. I just don't share that point of view. Saying more than that, besides the point that here is not the place to do so, can only lead into a heated debate, with the net result of more time spent away from my beloved LP (and other musical instruments).

That being said, the Moog Music company has always been pretty much open about hardware matters, explaining technical stuff, field upgrades, user experimentation and so forth. That I can only applaud.

Amos · Post by **Amos** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:14 pm

Hi all,

I am in the process of becoming Moog's in-house firmware guy.

I am currently working on the MP-201 (see firmware thread in the Controllers forum), but I have a very active interest in the LP as well.

What sort of development or new features would you like to see?

-Amos

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:47 am

Amos wrote:Hi all,

I am in the process of becoming Moog's in-house firmware guy.

I am currently working on the MP-201 (see firmware thread in the Controllers forum), but I have a very active interest in the LP as well.

What sort of development or new features would you like to see?

-Amos

It's been nearly two years and three upgrades since we were promised lower case letters. Most everyone except myself have probably forgotten about the heated threads about that. Anyone else want to chime in? Of course, there's always my Stage III thread with tons of great ideas.

nickster · Post by **nickster** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:43 pm

Amos wrote:Hi all,

I am in the process of becoming Moog's in-house firmware guy.

I am currently working on the MP-201 (see firmware thread in the Controllers forum), but I have a very active interest in the LP as well.

What sort of development or new features would you like to see?

-Amos

Amos
a step sequencer would be great maybe also controlled via the editor software?