Hi all,
On Saturday 09 April 2005 05:01, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> Arnold Krille wrote:
> >Yeah, but _we_ program for us, not for musicians or money, just for us and
> > our own fun. If someone can use it and even pay for it, fine. But most of
> > us do this in spare time so there is no "we must do this..."!
> just thought this was interesting in the context of the
> real-time/low-latency thread going on here ... cos, i guess, the kernel
> developers could throw this argument in the face of those who are
> campaigning for a real-time solution ...
> very solipsistic and wierd.
And you are fighting to get some realtime-/low-latency-patches into mainstream
kernel, because? - You need it for your programming and your using of
audio-software... :-)
> anyway, i wouldn't have normally responded, but i've been following the
> real-time thread and thought i'd point out a little drunken hypocrisy :)
> (no offense intended).
It's not an offense, I _was_ a little drunk. ;-) And came back from our local
linux-user-group meeting with a lot of talking and joking...
On Saturday 09 April 2005 21:22, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-04 at 02:12 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > Yes, I am a bit sarcastic... thats the way I am and it is after midnight
> > here (and I had some alcohol :-) ). If someone like Steve Harris or Paul
> > Davis proposes this (with such strong words as you used) on this list
> > (btw: this is suitable for a dev-list, not an user-list) I will react in
> > an other way, cause I know what they are capable of but your name doesn't
> > ring anything for me...
> Hey..
> I may disagree quite strongly with this anti-DSSI crap, but Juan (aka
> reduz) is a more than capable audio developer, and has written tons of
> non-trivial applications (and libs and whatnot)
> Manners!
Apologies to Juan for my words. I am sure he is a capable programmer but as I
tried to say, I haven't recognized his name in the discussions here or in the
apps I use so far. I am somehow sure he hasn't recognized me either. So we
both don't "respect" the other in such a way that one has the right to tell a
lot of people "your way of work and your concept of apps is crap".
I am not against trying to invent just another plugin architecture, do what
you want to do ("What do you want to do today?" ;-) ) but I am against
telling others "your way is bad or not enough".
And something on the real subject:
I don't think we need another layer or plugin-api. We have ladspa and dssi as
the linux-stuff and try to support vst from windows. So Windows-users can
switch to linux while not loosing all of their beloved plugins while
additionally learning about the linux-ladspa-dssi plugins and sooner or later
replacing the vst ones with adequate linux ones...
And I am uncertain about the "beautiful" gui stuff. Because Most times you
don't really need graphical feedback apart from the actual position of the
slider, if you can't hear the changes these are either irrelevant or you are
not trained enough (not as offense but as stimulation meant).
Of course I myself was pleased to see ardour feedback the actual reduction
levels on the compressors, but this is already working without any special
extension of ladspa or using special toolkits.
One could add some functions into ladspa to output arrays[1] for the
controlports even curves could be given back and then nothing prevents you
from creating eq-curves graphical without reaching for the knobs/sliders just
by modifying the curve...
Anyway, all you guys (and girls?) stay tuned and go on programming apart from
what everyone else says!
Arnold, who hopes this mail isn't all-too trollish...
[1] If these aren't already there. ladspa is still on my todo-list ;-)
-- There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 16:15:11 EEST