Re: [linux-audio-user] Concerning libfst, vstserver, and dssi-vst

> Greetings:
>
> Users are constantly wrestling with issues surrounding the software
> mentioned in the subject line, and I would like to find out what
> directions are planned for those projects. Here's what I see now:
>
> 1. The vstserver project is functionally dead. It cannot work with
> newer versions of WINE, and it appears that Kjetil does not plan to keep
> it updated to accommodate the new versions. Alas, this also means that
> his nice vsti, ladspavst, and k_vst~ projects are also unusable. :(
>
> 2. The libfst project is essentially unmaintained. Again, WINE
> versions wreak havoc with users who want to keep both fst and WINE
> up-to-date. Paul and/or Torben: Is the libfst project going to see any
> more activity from your end, or should it be considered an open project
> and up for grabs ?
>
> 3. The dssi-vst bridge is still unknown to me because of issues with
>
> RH9, and I've not had time to test it on FC3. But is there any general
> feeling that dssi-vst is a better route to take, at least for the normal
> user ? Btw, I like the DSSI API, but it seems slow in catching on with
> developers. Is that perception correct ?
>
> Please understand that I'm in no way criticising the work done on
> these projects so far. In point of fact, I'm extremely happy they exist,
> but I'm also in considerable doubt whether they can continue to be
> useful without further maintenance. Users are writing to other users to
> figure out how to fix small problems (usually with libfst), but these
> repairs are not making their way back into the codebase, which seems
> rather non-optimal to me. I'm also aware that the greater problems exist
> because of WINE's inherent instability (WRT its development, not
> necessarily its usability) and that Linux audio developers can't be
> responsible for WINE fixes too. Perhaps more crosstalk between the WINE
> developers and the LAD folk (similar to the recent discussion re: the
> kernel list and LAD) would help smooth the way for a more consistent and
> more manageable VST/VSTi bridge for Linux ?
>
> So, any comments or useful suggestions ?
>
> Best,
>
> dp

Dave,

My thoughts on this are perhaps scattered but:

I'm still using wine 20040505 for libfst. In working with Thac some months
ago and trying different versions of Wine it seemed this one was the only
reliable version for fst..but according to Shayne in an email similar to
this theme I wrote Sunday, dssi doesnt work with this version nor does the
Ardour vst suport but Muse support does.

All that regurgiated, I'm left wondering why the versions of Wine change
such that this can even occur in the first place?? There must be somewhat
significant code changes to cause it?? (I'm no coder and as ignorant as
one can be about it)

Perhaps we could buddy up with the Wine Dev team and try to get them to
focus on the audio api for just one release that is up to date and that
allows all of the vst tools we have to work! Then at least we might gain a
modern baseline to start from again? I know it prolly represents a lot of
talking and I dont know how the Wine devs would perceive the small numbers
of LAU and Dev but I do know this....VST is a valid option in what we do
and is not going away! LADSPA is AWESOME~~~ But so is VST. We have it in
some form...that makes it viable and valid.

If it took some finacial contributions of reasonable nature to get
someones attention at Wine dev, then maybe thats what it takes!

THis comes at a relevant time as I have started to get involved in
PClinuxOS and with Thac starting to package for them with Live personally
tailored bootable LiveCDs on the near horizon, it's sure be nice to have
a full working suite of vst capability there too. But I dont want to ask
Thac to do the foot work...he does more than his share IMHO....I would
rather dedicate to the footwork and help create Inertia.

Just a thought.
Cheers
R~
Received on Tue Apr 12 00:15:18 2005