ljp wrote:
To me, music is more important than any library ideologies. I wouldn't give
a rats ass if software was made with QBASIC, as long as it compiles fairly
easily (not alot of excessive library inclusion that I have to install
every libtom-libdick-and-libharry libs just to compile it-
At 22:04 7/25/2001 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
Paul Winkler writes:
I was just wondering why people on this list seem to ignore glame,
when
the discussion comes upon waveeditors. [ ... ]
i've worked experimentally and professionally in soft editing and multitrack
environments for
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
Paul Winkler writes:
I was just wondering why people on this list seem to ignore glame, when
the discussion comes upon waveeditors. [ ... ]
Can't compile it without GNOME. I don't like that. I guess that makes me a
luddite. Oh well.
You can. Use
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
Paul Winkler writes:
I was just wondering why people on this list seem to ignore glame, when
the discussion comes upon waveeditors. [ ... ]
Can't compile it without GNOME. I don't like that. I guess that makes me a
luddite. Oh well.
i *am* a
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:13:05 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul, I am trying to use FLTK instead of GTK, but I don't get it to work...
It crashed inside X11 functions. I have seen this before, and it always
was related to multithreading and FLTK not being threadsafe, but I don't
understand
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Andy Lo A Foe wrote:
I installed glame from Debian unstable (0.4.2) and, having used just
Sound Forge just the other day; how about a SF like interface?
Simple, and to the point, with nice easy toolbars 'n stuff?! I had to
read the manual to even open a WAV file in
This is a fairly lengthy rant on the latest glame. Some of you might find it
boring. It's really directed at the authors.
What I say here needs to be taken in context. My requirements for an editor
are fairly heavy as I make both commercial special effects and
noise/electroacoustic music.
It's
thank glameness for the filter-network. a surprise to find something of this
flexibility attached to an editor under linux.
btw i don't expect glame to be a multitrack studio, but will give mixing
down [recent post] a shot.
de|
_ / a - b, b -c, a - d, d - c ...and so on...\ _
ljp writes, in response to two criticisms of GNOME dependency:
To me, music is more important than any library ideologies. I wouldn't give
a rats ass if software was made with QBASIC, as long as it compiles fairly
easily
and then continues:
(not alot of excessive library inclusion that I
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, delire wrote:
This is a fairly lengthy rant on the latest glame. Some of you might find it
boring. It's really directed at the authors.
What I say here needs to be taken in context. My requirements for an editor
are fairly heavy as I make both commercial special effects
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
You can. Use --disable-gui and you'll get what you deserve.
Heh. :) Thats not really an answer ...
:)
i *am* a luddite, and i don't like GNOME-dependent audio software either.
Its certainly better to depend on wide spread GNOME than to depend on
If you have any suggestion on how to reduce the library set, or
improve on the functionality offered by each part, or package Ardour
for easier compilation, or whatever, I'd love to hear about it. And
I'm not being sarcastic.
Include your custom libs into the ardour CVS / tarball. Or at
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
If you have any suggestion on how to reduce the library set, or
improve on the functionality offered by each part, or package Ardour
for easier compilation, or whatever, I'd love to hear about it. And
I'm not being sarcastic.
Include your custom
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
ljp writes, in response to two criticisms of GNOME dependency:
To me, music is more important than any library ideologies. I wouldn't give
a rats ass if software was made with QBASIC, as long as it compiles fairly
easily
and then continues:
Its partly politics
(they wanted to provide more reasons for people to use GNOME) and
partly development issues (GTK+ was under a feature freeze).
I dont think so.
This is not speculation on my part. I've been told so by people who
work on both GTK+ and GNOME for RH.
apt-get install
I don't dislike GNOME because its big. I dislike it because it doesn't
Err, perhaps people dont understand which part of GNOME GLAME is using
- GLAME solely uses libgnomeui libgnome and libgnomesupport, it doesnt
depend on using GNOME as desktop.
I think that's a common confusion
Err - for which part of GNOME or its dependencies are no binaries
available??? Paul, what are you smoking??? The above is precisely
the problem with adour which certainly doesnt depend on GNOME but
libraries for which no binaries are available...
the words were:
(not alot of excessive library
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
Err - for which part of GNOME or its dependencies are no binaries
available??? Paul, what are you smoking??? The above is precisely
the problem with adour which certainly doesnt depend on GNOME but
libraries for which no binaries are available...
the
7/26/2001 19:59:58, Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ljp writes, in response to two criticisms of GNOME dependency:
To me, music is more important than any library ideologies. I wouldn't give
a rats ass if software was made with QBASIC, as long as it compiles fairly
easily
and then
If your connection is limited, use a CD set - GLAME doesnt require
up to date versions of any lib it depends on.
GLAME might not, but other applications that use part of the GNOME lib
set do. So if I install GNOME from a CD, and then find that another
GNOME app wants a later version, I'm stuck
(not alot of excessive library inclusion that I have to install
every libtom-libdick-and-libharry libs just to compile it- because there
no
binaries available),
which i read as saying i have to install a bunch of libraries because
i have to compile an application and i have to compile
would it be too dreadfully obnoxious and steinberg sniping to rename
LAAGA as FreeWire ?
True, but I suppose ardour is any better?
No, Ardour is not better. However, the set of libraries on which it
depends is smaller than GNOME.
I want to try ardour, but gave up tr
ying to compile it? WHY? Because the libraries you use are 1) obscure and
So if we pop up the waveeditor right away you would be happy?
ohhh yes ; )
and as for all that's below - look great so far - richards comments earlier
seemed clear-headed also. you guys already know this stuff! i'll pick
through it all and get back to you tommorrow.
de|
And the waveform
- Original Message -
From: Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2001 11:29
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] what's wrong with glame
I'm not the obvious person to define GLAME, but:
The idea of a 'project' is a nice approach - but it tends to
(bearing in mind I haven't installed, much less used, GLAME, or
anything, yet...)
Alexander Ehlert wrote:
Yeah, hmm, that's just naming. We could add something called open in the
menu which creates a group with the wavfile in it. But, importing it makes
sense because we convert everything
My reason is that there are so many editors to chose from I can only
really be bothered with contributing to 3 of them seriously.
Everyone is trying to do almost exactly the same thing so I have looked
around and chosen three (arbitrarily) that I like the most.
I have given up fighting the fact
Can someone provide details for how to make the patch for the low
latency kernel please?
you don't *make* a patch unless you're a kernel hacker.
you can get Andrew Morton's patch(es) from somewhere under:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/
you apply it like any other kernel patch:
All the ~multi-track~ programs I have had experience of (Cubase, Cool
Edit Pro, and most recently, cakewalk SONAR) use the semantic 'Import',
for a simple reason - in a multi-track project, you have N tracks, and
any soundfile must be 'imported' to one of these (You may indeed need to
select a
To put it bluntly. LAD make a mockery of the idea of lazy hackers.
Everyone is trying to do the same thing over and over and over and.
yeah, just like soundforge and cool edit pro and cakewalk and logic
and cubase and samplitude and session and protools and bias peak
and digital performer
7/26/2001 23:30:38, Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't I make my libraries available as RPMs or debian packages?
Because I have better things to do with my development time than
rebuilding, reuploading, re-doing a web page every time I fix a bug in
a library. Thats why Ardour is
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:38:12AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
would it be too dreadfully obnoxious and steinberg sniping to rename
LAAGA as FreeWire ?
Wll
FreeWire sounds much more like a thing for freely wireing together free audio
apps in a free way.
freewire.org has gone, laaga.org
Actually you can resample with rather good quality. But you have to setup
a network for that purpose. Just stream the audio into FFT-FFT_RESAMPLE-
IFFT. IMHO the quality is better than sox with polyphase resampling which
produces glitches.
What exactly is the algorithm? Does it do a good job?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:54:49PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
FreeWire sounds vaguely like drugs reference, LAAGA sounds like a Beer
reference ;)
Only to wideboys and Cortina Mk.III drivers who holiday on the costa
del sol, mate :)
You mean its possible to drive a Cortina and not be a
Richard Dobson said:
and, wherever possible, ensure that the most frequently performed tasks
(which may be the most argued-over parameter, of course) require the
least number of steps. A sub-menu requires at least four, possibly five
steps:
How difficult would it be to add a statistical
I thought it worked quite well.
LADs n their LAAGA.
Sounds right manly dunnit!
--
Patrick Shirkey - Manager Boost Hardware.
Importing Korean Computer Hardware to New Zealand.
Http://www.boosthardware.com - Cool toys to fufill every geeks fantasy.
Ok, throwing out ideas in the air:
PatchCable
Awire
Lwire
AudioWire
DigiWire
DigiPatch
Not Another Wire (NAW) :) (Hook your DAW with NAW)
AudioConnect
LiveConnect
I can make more :)
Rick
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
FreeWire sounds vaguely like drugs reference, LAAGA sounds
Paul Davis said:
To put it bluntly. LAD make a mockery of the idea of lazy hackers.
Everyone is trying to do the same thing over and over and over and.
yeah, just like soundforge and cool edit pro and cakewalk and logic
and cubase and samplitude and session and protools and bias peak
its proven *extremely* problematic to use binaries of C++
libraries. C++ is much more susceptible than C to compile-time
conditions. in addition, the dists have become increasingly
incompatible due to compiler/library issues, and furthermore, they
...
You can link a static version of the
Paul Davis wrote:
who said a shallow learning curve was a goal?
In a word - users! A shallow learning curve exists where, primarily, a
user can open an application specified to perform a specific set of
tasks (e.g a soundfile editor, a word processor), and does not have to
read the
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
Only to wideboys and Cortina Mk.III drivers who holiday on the costa
del sol, mate :)
I have no idea what the above means.
Yeah, I'm not terribly hot on it. Somehow though, ReWire, CoreAudio
FreeWire is cute. I bet it would get annoying fast. Also
hi
i want to unsubscribe from the mailing list pls help me
--
thanigai mani
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - email
1-415-430-2180 x1043 - voicemail/fax
Steve Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:38:12AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
would it be too dreadfully obnoxious and
yes! instead of rigid menus or menus with last N open files etc. there
should be a menu re-arranging functionality that changes parts of the menu
so that the most often used functions are easy to access. For one-prupose
application that's already done, sort of, by designing the menu according
I think everybody would expect FreeWire to be fully portable to other OSes
than linux then. Is it the case? (I'm talking about the API, not the actual
implementation...).
indeed it is.
--p
Yeh but this isn't doze or mac world. The only reason there is such a
proliferation of stuff on those other platforms is because they sell it.
We don't so why do we have so much competition? AFAIK we are the ones
who aren't in it for the money. Not that money is evil or anything or
even if it is
Sounds good, certainly more marketable than LAAGA
(which reminds me lago which in italian means lake)
:-)
cheers,
Benno.
On Thursday 26 July 2001 17:38, you wrote:
would it be too dreadfully obnoxious and steinberg sniping to rename
LAAGA as FreeWire ?
ljp wrote:
At 22:04 7/25/2001 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
Paul Winkler writes:
I was just wondering why people on this list seem to ignore glame, when
the discussion comes upon waveeditors. [ ... ]
Can't compile it without GNOME. I don't like that. I guess that makes me a
luddite.
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
I think that's a common confusion -- a lot of people seem to confuse
running a Gnome application with having to run a Gnome desktop, and it
just ain't the same at all. The Gnome libs are under 100 MB, so it's
really not that big a deal.
Not on current desktop systems ...
FreeWire *is* a nice name ...
but it would imply to me, like others of the ilk, that its API follows that
of the system alluded to... which it doesn't intend to.
Hmm... but I don't drink laaga either ...
A lot of the obvious names have already been used by commercial apps... but
I'd gravitate
POSA
Paul's Own Sound Architecture
now *that* made me laugh ...
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Richard Dobson wrote:
Now I am well aware that Linux/unix inherits and gleefully preserves a
aura of obscurantism, with requests (often none too polite!) to RTFM at
every turn, but often the FM is incomprehensible unless you already know
what it means, and often the FM
I agree with others that FreeWire sounds too much like we're copying Rewire.
Trying to think of other names... ergh, it's hard.
MediaGlue?
--
...paul winkler
custom calendars printing: http://www.calendargalaxy.com
A member of ARMS:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, STEFFL, ERIK *Internet* (SBCSI) wrote:
yes! instead of rigid menus or menus with last N open files etc. there
should be a menu re-arranging functionality that changes parts of the menu
so that the most often used functions are easy to access. For one-prupose
I believe
Inveterate Windows-avoiders may not know this, but Win2k does this for
the applications on the Start menu. This can carry a potentially huge
number of applications (I've seen examples where the full top-level menu
filled two columns); Windows gradually learns what the most-used
programs are, and
who said a shallow learning curve was a goal?
In a word - users!
I don't think this is realistic for professional media tools.
If it were, there wouldn't be complete course tracks in
commercial art school for learning how to use commercial
software packages -- Maya, Photoshop, etc. These
Fair questions!
I wasn't speaking merely about audio applications. I have very few on my
Linux machine, at present, as it is a new installation, so I need to get
the latest versions of all sorts of things, before making detailed
up-to-date comments.
I have one example where I would really like
POSA
Paul's Own Sound Architecture
now *that* made me laugh ...
true, but i wonder if taybin has any idea of quite why, since i think
i do (given your understanding of the cortina mk.III situation) ...
The next best alternative is code that statistacally keeps track of how
often commands etc are used, then its sent back so people can see what the
most frequent operations are and how they distribute between different
users.
Just an idea,
Rick
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
On
But it should be recursive, to get that old school unix in-joke flavor.
I still quite like the suggestion of API (the Audio Processing
Interface), so that we have the API API :)
--p
- Original Message -
From: Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2001 2:42
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] what's wrong with glame
(bearing in mind I haven't installed, much less used, GLAME, or
anything, yet...)
Alexander Ehlert wrote:
I have one example where I would really like to have an answer: having
installed Mandrake 7.2 (replacing an old but pleasant Redhat 6), I have
the problem that in the terminal (under KDE), different file types are
now colour-coded. As it happens, I totally hate this, and want
everything to be
61 matches
Mail list logo
