On 2/14/07, Stefano D'Angelo <zanga.mail@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> I understand that most of you don't feel the need to have such thing,
> because LADSPA support is everywhere and lots of LADSPA plugins are
> good, but from my point of view there are thousands of VST plugins
> around and thousands of hardware machines that use VST and that little
> program I'm going to write simply can't ignore this situation.
> I'm absolutely pro-LADSPA/LV2, and I particularly dislike VST license,
> but it's not a reason to exclude support right now. And it is not a
> reason to stop experimenting new possible solutions.
> At the end freedom is choice, isn't it?
>
> Stefano
>
Aren't you kind of glossing over the fact that those thousands of VST
plugins around were all written for a different OS, and therefore
"wrapping" them involves a whole mess of technical and philosophical
problems?
Personally, I'd rather see the effort go towards making LV2 a real,
workable standard with all the important features (presets, host tempo
sync, MIDI handling/processing) that some of the other standards have.
Received on Thu Feb 15 00:15:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 15 2007 - 00:15:02 EET