Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb

On 02/22/2011 10:12 PM, David Robillard wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, this is all about Libre audio software anyway,
> and I disagree with the name of this list/site (who actually cares about
> the specific kernel?). Getting e.g. OSX people on board is a part of
> making the LAD 'platorm' a success. If people on proprietary platforms
> start using free plugins, and they start using free hosts, eventually
> they're using free everything (e.g. a Jack/LV2 based music platform) and
> that's when they can switch to Lignux. Otherwise, they simply won't, and
> that is obviously not a win for LAD, Linux, Open Source, GNU, Free
> Software, or whatever label you prefer to rally behind.

agreed.

> Maybe you don't care. Fine. You're obviously not the person to be
> designing our plugin API, then.
>
> Old persnickety grey-bearded UNIX administrators aren't exactly a
> significant or compelling market for music software. Perhaps for you and
> me, using Lignux is a given, and doing music stuff is something you may
> want to tinker with. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who
> use music software, it is the other way around.
>
> Put simply:
>
> "I don't care about portability" == "Nobody cares about my software".

compelling argument, but not totally true. i'm not really disagreeing
with your earlier statements, but i think there are some interesting
aspects to the old greybearded unix wizard approach that fons apparently
stands for.

here's a bunch of software that uses static, totally non-cross-platform
makefiles that won't work out-of-the-box on 90% of all architectures.
but they are dead easy to fix.
it uses a custom x11 toolkit, custom thread library wrapper, and other
idiosyncrasies. but it doesn't depend on sixteen other packages. which
actually makes the stuff quite portable to osx, if you are willing to
run x11 on top of it, without going through dependency hell.
it has one heck of a large userbase, and some parts are considered
reference implementations in their respective fields.
it also tends to just work.

i guess the argument is grand-unified-abstraction-meta-api vs.
potentially limited but _focused_ software.
you can use a rack full of kickass midi gear with crossbars, mappers,
generic controllers, whatnot. or you can have a hot soldering iron at
the ready on top of your organ at all times and just rewire it as needed :)

the former approach will impose fewer limitations. but the latter allows
you to make some noise right now.
both are very valid imho.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Feb 23 00:15:05 2011