Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ANNOUNCE: Rosegarden-4 v0.1.5 released
From: Richard Bown (bownie_AT_bownie.com)
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 18:04:17 EEST
Paul Davis wrote:
> >rob wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Davis wrote:
> >> > I don't think people writing audio/midi/music
> >> > applications should be using "desktop environments".
> >>
> >> Their time is much better spent reimplementing everything a desktop
> >> environment gives in non-standard ways that no-one other than themselves
> >> can understand rather then working on the app.
> >
> >If people want good quality, well-supported music applications for Linux
> >then they'd better leave their preconceptions at the door. We should
> >eschew the geek in favour of the average user.
> >
> >Make use of the toolkits that already exist - make life easier for
> >developers and users alike - provide quality software that's stable,
> >functional and enjoy using.
Attribution, dammit.
> Yes, but by using the "desktop environments" a developer risks several things:
>
> 1) require the user to have that desktop environment installed
> 2) require the user to have that desktop environment in use
> 3) require the user to understand that particular desktop environment
While the jury is out on the future of the desktop we can only base our
assumptions on what exists now. KDE is looking pretty (yes, thanks to
Qt and XFree86) and is relatively simple to code for (thanks to Qt again)
and allows you to write ui software in a consistent and relatively
pretty manner.
We (the Rosegarden development team) have already debated the GUI issue
amongst ourselves for a long time (see the mailing list archives from
a couple of years ago). Personally I'm happy not to be writing for
Xt/Athena anymore, personally I'm glad the higher level sound APIs
have finally come of age (well, at least ALSA has) and I'm glad that I
can code new features quickly for both sound and gui with the minimum
of fuss in a realtively controlled and stable environment.
For the ill-fated Rosegarden-3 we were working around a development
version of egcs and a development version of MICO which between them
wasted more of our time than we could've hoped to spend on coding.
There's a lesson in there in terms of time spent wasted on shifting
sands.
Whether or not this has anything to do with desktop environments I
couldn't really tell you - perhaps it's more about a unified future
for Linux desktop than anything else. It's a big question. What I
do know is that there's a lot of Qt in KDE - basically it's up to the
coder to decide if they want to use the quick-and-neat-and-integrated
KDE features that are on offer or recode them themselves at a slightly
lower level in Qt. Sometimes it's obvious to go the KDE way and sometimes
we have to specialise our own widgets from Qt. Either way we have the
choice and where it makes sense to do so we'll use the short cut.
Speaking personally again, my goal is to have a sequencer and music
editor that I can use to produce music. I would like to have something
working sooner rather than later. If someone else wants to use or
modify our application then that's fine - we code under the GPL, take
it and do with it what you will. Alternatively if you can swallow the
KDE pill then take it, use it, tell us what you don't like about it.
It's a simple choice.
> I have *nothing* against using a GUI toolkit.
[..]
> I don't want users of my software forced into the naive, limited and
> strained metaphors when they should be making, editing and processing
> music and sound.
I completely agree with what you're saying. I just don't understand
how these objections relate to us using KDE. Are you saying that by
using it we're being elitist or short termist or prescriptive or what?
Whatever it is, just as some users prefer some UIs to others, there's
plenty of room out there for decent music software of all denominations.
So peace, eh?
R
-- http://www.all-day-breakfast.com/rosegarden http://www.bownie.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun May 05 2002 - 17:59:57 EEST