Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 03:50:23 EET
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 23:45, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 Jan 2004 9:48 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to destroy the importance
> > of LAD with your ignorance.
>
> I hadn't intended to join this thread, but this kind of talk is
> ridiculous.
>
> As far as I can see, Daniel has had an idea for something, polled a
> few familiar names to see if there would be any interest, found that
> there might be, taken the initiative in talking to a number of
> industry contacts, created a provisional website and prepared to
> announce the consortium project. This is surely the moral equivalent
> of the way practically any successful free software project starts
> up: by producing some decent code for people to work from and
> releasing it, rather than creating half a dozen web forums
What are you talking about? I'm suggesting to keep the community in one
place, and build it around something which has got tradition and a
growing number of members/subscribers. The linuxaudio.org is more an
attempt to split the community IMHO.
> So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
> with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
> mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
> here endlessly before anything could be done, nothing would be done?
Jack, ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.
>
> Surely the lesson from any successful free software project is that
> you have to have a kernel of a worthwhile implementation before you
> throw your idea open to ridicule. If the people who are actually
> trying to do work in and with and around this consortium perceive, as
> the project runs, that Daniel is too autocratic or the consortium in
> general is being too ineffectual or the balance of power is wrong,
> then it will change or it will fail. Personally I think he has a
> good idea and he's going about it in a reasonable, if hurried, way.
> There's room for discussion, but at this stage I think an energetic
> attempt to do more-or-less the right thing is much better than
> nothing.
So discussion means nothing to you?
> I can entirely understand people feeling frustrated that they didn't
> know about this, but it is true that it's at a very early stage, and
> that sort of thing always happens no matter what you do. For
> example, one reason there were no Rosegarden developers at the first
> ZKM meeting was that it was only announced on LAD, and none of the
> Rosegarden developers were subscribed to LAD at the time,
Well, i'm glad you are now. :) ZKM was announced publicly ~6 months
before.
> and I
> remember some misplaced frustration that nobody had bothered to tell
> us about it. Daniel may not have contacted LAD about his idea, but
> at least he contacted many of the people on the projects that he knew
> about directly.
Why do you think that linuxaudio.org consortium is going to solve
exactly this issue?
How about those who are still not subscribed to LAD or reading its
archives and those who don't know about linuxaudio.org?
> I have two points here: it's wrong to think of LAD
> as the one distinct voice of the community because it's a very
> self-selecting group;
...of 700+ people (and growing)?
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 01:49:09 EET