Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Fwd Windows vs Linux, VST vs Mucos etc
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: pe helmi 25 2000 - 16:48:37 EST
>I agree with Michel that VST on Linux would instantly bring a myriad
>of plugins, soft-synths etc to Linux,
>but I have two arguments against it:
>
>- VST license is proprietary (we want an open standard without being slaves of
> a single company ( M$ was enough)
If Steinberg insisted on a proprietary license for a Linux VST
implementation, then its somewhat dead in the water. I don't know
anyone who really matters in the Linux audio development community who
would be prepared to use it, and I know that I for one would be very
vocal about encouraging others to ignore it.
>- VST is not the best possible plugin-API as we figured out here on the list.
> ( hardwired MIDI , not very flexible event handling etc, .. just ask David
>Olofson)
This is a separate issue. Truth be told, if Steinberg told me next
week that they were shipping an open source version of VST2, then I
think we could just more or less forget about MuCoS. Not because Mucos
would not be better from a technical standpoint. Definitely
not. (Besides, how could something real ever be as good as vaporware?
:) But the work involved in developing a new plugin standard and
promoting it would, to my mind, never be matched by the benefits if a
working, widely used "standard" was available. I think that though VST
could be improved, and though I think that we have sketched out many
improvements right here on LAD, we are kidding ourselves if we think
that its a better path to go down to ignore an open source VST
implementation in favor of the "better" solution.
However, Steinberg have given no indications that (1) a
non-proprietary license is possible and (2) that an open source
implementation might exist. Until both of these things are confirmed,
I am much more interested in Mucos because of its technical
superiority over VST.
>Steinberg are nice people and I think they are considering the Linux platform
>as soon it becomes a viable solution,
It *is* a viable solution on a technical level. The sense in which it
is not "viable" is mostly that Steinberg do not have VST available for
it, Digidesign do not have TDM available for it, etc.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:27 EST