On 2/24/06, Rob <lau@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Fri February 24 2006 11:36, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > Yes, it is: Rosegarden doesn't need KDE (at least if the
> > programmers did their job). It just needs kdelibs which is
> > much smaller and faster to compile/install than whole KDE.
>
> I don't know whether this means the programmers did their job or
> not, but when I fire up rosegarden on my machine, it launches
> kdeinit, dcopserver, and all that other cruft if it's not
> already running.
>
> So even if you're running GNOME or IceWM or whatever, you are
> also running KDE while you're running Rosegarden, just not the
> desktop, panel, et al.
>
> I personally have no problem with that, because (1) I run KDE
> already and (2) Rosegarden has never been advertised as a
> lightweight anything, but I see their point. I doubt other
> full-featured sequencer apps are much lighter.
>
> Rob
Well, I don't think that it can be labeled as full-featured as
Rosegarden et al, but seq24 does a decent job, although it is not so
much linear as it is pattern-based. It seems pretty light to me, and
if you're using a light desktop/wm, you probably don't mind missing
some features, I would think... I don't know, I had a lot of issues
with Rosegarden and the way it manages the instruments and how it
never remembered them if I re-open the file again at a later date, but
I think it's a great application just the same. But I'll likely use
seq24 myself, as it seems more like my hardware-based sequencer/synth.
So, to the OP, there's an option to look into if you can deal with
loop/pattern-based sequencers.
Dana
Received on Sun Feb 26 20:20:45 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:20:45 EET