On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:45:15 -0500
David Robillard <d@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 23:44 +0100, Alex Stone wrote:
> [...]
> > As a user of NSM, and from that user perspective, it does what it says
> > on the tin. It's user friendly, and helps administer the process of
> > starting up my large sessions with no rocket science involved.
> >
> > Given the strong wills, and previous scorch marks in the ML about
> > session management, i have no desire to light a match here, but for
> > the simple task of starting a succession of apps in a session, NSM
> > does its job well, imho.
> >
> > How much code is required in apps to enable them for NSM use?
> >
> > Is there an appetite for at least one session management app that does
> > the simple stuff well that users can become familiar with as a
> > "linuxaudio" basic default, as a "unified" community protocol
> > agreement, without descending into hades and a flame war, in the
> > interest of taking the community forward, and giving users a better
> > experience?
>
> Oh boy, *this*, again.
>
> In retrospect, replying to this thread at all is surely the dumbest
> thing I will do today. Nevermind.
Which means the person who started the thread must surely be the
dumbest person on earth, or something.
Could you elaborate please: why is compatibility between the existing
session management systems a dumb idea? Is it because if something
would work together in the Linux audio world in a reasonable way,
there would be danger of somebody actually using it? Please enlighten
me.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Feb 24 04:15:03 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 24 2013 - 04:15:03 EET