Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] User Interface
From: Dave Phillips (dlphilp_AT_bright.net)
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 16:49:16 EEST
Paul Davis wrote:
> ...snd has had the same kind of capabilities
> as the GIMP in the realm of audio for many years now. One might argue
> even more power, given that it uses Guile for the scripting language.
>
> Yet nobody (well, OK, very few people) have jumped into snd and done
> all kinds of cool extensions and widgets. So before you jump to any
> conclusions about the value of extensibility, I'd like to hear why snd
> hasn't become the darling of the audio world, at least on Unix-like
> systems.
The extensibility's value is a return on a user's investment in learning
LISP/Guile/Scheme/Ruby. Not that it's so difficult to do, but it's not a
user's first thought when he tries out a soundfile editor (that is,
"learning how to use a soundfile editor" doesn't usually equal "learning
a (possibly new) programming language") . The value also depends on an
investment in learning Snd's rather large tool set. Snd includes a
wealth of interesting functions which would be more appreciated were
they more easily accessible, i.e., drop-down or pop-up menus. Bill
Schottstaedt very nicely whipped up a little menu for me that included a
number of DSP routines, but it was still in need of more definition
(apply to whole file or only selected region(s) or only outside of
selected region(s) or...?). Anyway, IMO that's what Snd needs most
desperately in order to impart a feeling of familiarity to someone
coming from Cool Edit.
The thing is, Bill S has already done the dirty work of creating all
those neat functions (such as making available all the power of Common
LISP Music from within Snd, very cool), but I don't see anyone else
coming up with some great Snd interface customization. Echoing someone
else's comments regarding study of tools such as Maya or Photoshop, I'd
love to spend a couple of weeks peering over Bill's shoulder to see how
the Master works with the toolkit. I'd consider that time well spent,
and I'll bet I could get Snd further along the "look & feel &
friendliness" path of an app like Cool Edit.
> If and when a particular program really gains critical mass (and of
> course, I'm really hoping it will be ardour, but it could just as
> easily be GLAME, or Audacity or ecasound or something else), I expect
> what will happen is that new audio developers will work with that
> codebase to improve and extend it and include the functionality
> present in similar programs. gradually, the momentum behind other
> projects will fade, though perhaps not. At that time, you'll be seeing
> at lot more Apache-like cooperation. But we're not at that point
> yet. Someone wants to get to A, someone else wants to get to B. Whats
> the point of cooperating on two different destinations?
Hear the man. Linux audio development is considerably less mature than
the development tracks of Apache or the Linux kernel, so I'm not
expecting that degree of distributed cooperation at this point. And Paul
makes an especially cogent point about different destinations: if GLAME
and Ardour were trying to do the same things then I would agitate for a
closer working effort, but it doesn't seem to me that they're aiming in
the same direction at all (unless GLAME intends to reach a pro-audio
level audience who will expect support for the sort of features Paul is
building into Ardour).
Well, I'm still all for letting ten thousand flowers blossom. I'm hoping
to live to see the day of ALSA 1.0 and Ardour 1.0, along with the
maturing of all the other fine Linux audio applications. Then I can just
get back to working on music (i.e., music made on a Linux machine, if
you please :).
Best regards,
== Dave Phillips
The Book Of Linux Music & Sound at http://www.nostarch.com/lms.htm
The Linux Soundapps Site at http://sound.condorow.net
Promote civil discourse. Work hard, enquire, and consider differing
points of view.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 27 2001 - 16:22:56 EEST