Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 23:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> It is good (tm) to define broad standards that encompass a variety of
> situations. But usually broad means also thin, which results in it
> being less helpful for each specific situation it pretends to be
> applied to.
>
> And no matter how broad you try to make it, I bet someone comes up
> with a feature that is absolutely essential for his/her purposes that
> the standard should cover but fails to.
>
> How broad do we want it? Wouldn't it be a good idea to survey what
> people are doing with LADSPA and what are they missing in it?
>
> Personally, I don't need any more modular synths, thanks.

I'm going to assume this is a shot at me for rather obvious reasons.
Since you must know, my thoughts are mostly with Ardour, which will soon
be OSC controlled. You may have noticed that Ardour isn't a modular
synth. Fancy that.

> I miss the most in LADSPA:
> - Sensible GUIs.

*sigh* someone just had to do it, didn't they?

We don't need another inifinitely long GUI toolkit pissing match thread
that is guaranteed to lead absolutely nowhere, thanks.

LAD_S_PA2 is not going to have GUIs. http://dssi.sf.net. Enjoy.

Now can we please have a productive discussion about fixing very real
problems with LADSPA without /that/ *&%$% topic ruining everything, yet
again, thanks?

-DR-
Received on Sun Apr 23 04:15:06 2006