[LAU] Re : LADI

Hi Nedko,
The following tiny comments are to give some feedback even if most of the details you mention are beyond my scope as a user and I would be too scared to analyse that thoroughly. Take the already-said thingies as +1s.

> After recent discussion on IRC I'm
> loosing faith in whether it is worth
> to contribute to linux audio session handling/management.
For me, session management is actually THE issue that a linux audio setup for me is still lacking, so PLEASE don't ;). I think it's the reason why people, sometimes including myself, are sticking to plugin solutions be it any of the native open standards or VST. But plugins are not an option for everything, and they press your setup an some predefined shape which I don't like that much. BTW is it true that none of the native standards can pass clock information to a plugin?
It's the reason of a couple of frustrations where in plain composing environment you realize that you have to spend the next 10 minutes on rebuilding your 'studio' loading various parameters, verify connections, etc...if an app decided to tear down jack...well this rarely happens with jack2 I have to say.

> Two reasons
> were given why it does not get testing from users. One is
> that what I
> did so far is not mature, has annoying bugs and I'm not
> wanting to fix
> them. The other one is that ladish is not giving more than
> users already
> have with qjackctl.

It's the latter why I have to admit that I didn't test LADI yet. I pretty well get along with qjackctl, but restoring the apps' states is what makes the setup(s) long. It needs really good concentration on things certain one-stop-shop host applications just take care of on their own. If you use many independent apps, don't forget to save each synth's or FX's parameters before you quit, know where you put all the files, in which hierarchy, etc....I think such a modular linux studio can only survive on the long term with a concept like LADI or LASH. And I got to know the latter and the fact that many of my apps didn't have support for it.

> Also it was mentioned that D-Bus is not
> what users
> find acceptable for controlling jack server.

I cannot comment on that, but my impression is, the problems arise because this can only work in an environment in which all apps follow that behaviour and for this they would have to adapt their standards, is that what it is?

> Given the almost missing feedback about LADI development
> from community
> members that could benefit from it, I'm not sure whether I
> should
> continue to contribute. Maybe I should give up on trying to
> make linux
> audio usable for my needs. I could also stop using
> computers and make
> music only by using my guitar.
 
Even if I don't know your guitar playing I don't think we should accept this :)

> [resume on things that suck]
I share many of the points that are in there, but how can a user take position in that complex goods and bads environment? So we all do what works best for what we're currently up to...

Finally I do not know how LADI can talk to all of the apps around and tell them to load their patches and restore their state, but I really think it's worth TO GO ON WITH THAT.

Frank.

      
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sat Nov 21 00:15:06 2009