On 02/24/2011 12:43 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> It's also foolish to suggest that the 'all inclusive universal
> DAW' will cater for those needs - just ignore what you don't
> use etc. It most definitely does *not* because it's by no means
> as universal as you may think, but rather the reflection of
> one particular musical culture. Which means that whatever is
> not used in that particular scene will not be provided. Ardour,
> despite all it qualities and being a magnificent piece of work,
> is a good example of that.
Now you talk about features not being provided, when the starting point
was features that are provided.
> Also, 'ignoring the bits you don't need' is not always as simple
> as it may seem. The simple fact that these things _are_ provided
> has consequences on the overall design, they _do_ distract, they
> _have_ to be checked and disabled (often each time again), they
> _do_ take resources and they _do_ impact reliability. And they
> are not compile time options.
Sure, a tool that offers exactly what you need and nothing more has
something reassuring to it. But how much do you get to see of Ardour's
MIDI support if you simply do not add any MIDI track to your session?
> And for a professional user that is irrelevant.
> Spending some money on Protools is not really different to doing
> the same for a kilometer of microphone cable or some XLR plugs.
You pay license fees for cables and plugs and you would never alter them
in any way?
-- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Thu Feb 24 16:15:02 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 24 2011 - 16:15:02 EET