Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Alsa Recording Software Programming HOWTO
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue Jun 20 2000 - 20:18:21 EEST
In message <20000620160222Z22826-13290+92_AT_nic.funet.fi>you write:
>>From: Paul Barton-Davis <pbd_AT_Op.Net>
>>
>
>Thanks for the comments.
>
>>This is simply not true. If I am overdubbing, then there are
>>situations where I definitely want to use the original file.
>
>That belongs to the behaviour where user explicitly need to say
>he wants that behaviour (switching "overdubbing" button).
>
>>Well, its a judgement call. I would say that most people used to
>>working with tape systems would say that it should be the other way
>>around.
>
>Old technology. New technology is better. I'm not trying to imitiate
[ Potentially off-topic, but I could not think of a better response. ]
I turn to Wendell Berry, who, in an essay called "Why I am not going
to buy a computer", offers a non-dogmatic set of guidelines for what
constitutes "good" technology and "good" tools.
1) The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
2) It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
3) It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the
one it replaces.
4) It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
5) If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that
of the body.
6) It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided
that he/she has the necessary tools.
7) It should be purchasable and repairable as near home as possible.
8) It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that
will take it back for maintainance and repair.
9) It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists,
and this includes family and community relationships.
To which I add:
10) When finally unusable, it should be easily decomposed into
recyclable, reusable and/or biodegradable materials.
Compare "the old" and "the new", and its not so clear which is better.
I would then say that Juhana, your attitude seems to me to display
enormous arrogance. I am not arguing over new technology versus old
technology, but over issues of user familiarity, usability and
interface design.
>old technology, besides you need to rewind the tape before you may
>record over your previous recording. In disk, the situation can be
>totally different.
Yes, and on a tape we can store an analog signal on its own track, and
use it for high-precision, low latency scrubbing. So what ?
Thats not the question. The questions are: what do users *expect* ? What
do users *want* ? What can programmers *give* them ?
>>Why would you ever "delete" the overwritten file, instead of just
>>truncating it to the correct length, and re-using it ?
>
>Some programs may close the previous file, and open a new file.
>When the new file is the same as previous, I guess the file gets
>deleted first (unless some weird options are used in open).
Well, if so, they are poorly written.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 21:04:17 EEST