Re: [LAU] midi sequencers

On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Geoff Beasley <songshop@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> > So far you haven't listed a *single* feature you want that is missing
> > from any of these, nor have you detailed any bugs.
>
> guy's, read the post. this thread was not a list of required features. this
> thread was from a midi-centric composer/arranger/performer who has been using
> seq's scince 1990, 5-6 days a week.I have run a full time Linux studio for 4
> years now. this thread is about the fact that there isn't a midi equivilent
> to ardour. that's all. MusE has a full compliment of features, it's just a
> little buggy ( but they are important bugs), and not moving forward.

I think Muse is a promising little program. Quite possibly its
problems have to do with its not being widely used; if it could
attract more developers- and a spiffier GUI along the way- it might be
taken more seriously by neophytes and become more of a priority.
Alas, like everyone else, I don't have time to even consider helping
out.

> If I wan't to expose a weakness in LA's audio fabric I'll do so. And this is
> the place for it. If you used these softs as often as I do you would be
> aware of these failings and their extent. I'm not whinging, I'm exposing an
> important hole in the LA fermament.

It could also be said, though, that the more well-developed things are
the exception, not the rule. That the level of this hole is
sea-level, and the areas which have risen are to be commended heartily
rather than used as a measuring stick.

> As for bug reports I have been very
> active with these in MusE, as I have been with Ardour and Qjackctl etc etc,
> and have also had dealings with Chris with Rosegarden. The Muse team have
> been very supportive but don't have the time. There really isn't anything
> else sequencer wise,that I can see, and there needs to be. Without it LA
> risks not getting wider acceptance.

I agree, and I would love to see it get wider acceptance- I was
specifically told by a devoted Mac musician that lack of software is
his only reason for not embracing Linux- but really, whose
responsibility is it? No one owns Linux. It improves IF someone
decides to fill a need. Perhaps Windows software would say "If you
build it, they will come," but I think Linux is more like, "If they
come, someone will build it."

-Chuckk

-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user