On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 12:45, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:15:51AM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
I have studied scales from apart the world since I was a teenager.
Great ! Do you make the results of your efforts available somewhere ?
Now you're imposing the same kind
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 21:34, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 17:32 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I think this isn't the point. The point is, that even if the application
itself is free as in beer, you may encounter problems when trying to run
it, like:
./scala: error while loading
it's the height of hypocrisy to disrespect the copyright holders
distribution terms.
What?? Where did i disrespect his terms?
Guy, I don't need the source code. I really don't. You may, but I don't.
Sometimes I want to see it. Sometimes I need it to make a binary because
there
is no
B) The GPL is not the be all end all ideal of licenses.
Actually it's a rather smart license and i'm glad it's been widely
adopted. The fact that GPL needs another revision is another story.
OTOH, how do you measure the value of Scala or any other
application?
Is it determined by
On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 00:59, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Read my messages again and *think* before you respond. Idiot.
These flamewars are making me want to unsubscribe from LAD.
You don't have to, i'm doing it now.
Please stop
being so hostile.
Sure.
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 22:44, John Check wrote:
On Saturday 18 December 2004 10:20 am, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2004-17-12 at 15:28 -0500, John Check wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 01:04 pm, Paul Brossier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 01:46, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 10:20:44AM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
Not everyone's standards/opinions are the same as yours.
And not everyone's credits are the same as yours.
Did you ever have a close look at Scala ? It's one of those
Hi,
Or has some or all this stuff already been done? Most of the work will be in
converting ssm's 50+ existing plugins to ladspa - and writing a gui that sends
osc messages.
I think this is a great idea, since it allows everyone else to share the
DSP.
Marek
Hi,
just wanted to say that there are 10 posts already, none of those guys
were actively participating in recent threads except Martin IIRC. I
counted at least another 10-15 people who mentioned that they're using
RME on LAD/LAU. For those who don't feel like expressing their opinion
at all, i'd
Hi all,
thanks to Martin Rumori, there is now a thread called
Linux audio, ALSA and RME support
on the RME forum.
Please do not hesitate to contribute!
The forum can be found here:
News server: news.x-networks.de
Forum: rme-audio.forum
In case you have troubles finding the right software
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 02:32, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
WILL YOU PLZ ALL SHUT UP ALL BEFORE EVERYBODY IS GETTING BADNAMED!!
THIS LIST IS F SEARCHABLE, IF YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS IS NOT A
PRIVATE CONVERSATION
Jens, that's the beauty of being public. It's a lot closer to honesty
and
Additional note:
Since i've been involved in discussions on that forum, it would be
better if anybody else volunteered to start the thread.
As nobody has done this yet, i suspect it going to be a fiasco, but at
least it was worth a try.
Marek
I thought you were just bitching because RME didn't give you something you
wanted and you were trying to rally the LAD troops to create a big stink to try
to get RME to give it to you... ;-)
No it was me.
Watch your words. You're starting to be pretty rude and offensive.
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 16:18, Jan Depner wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 19:58, Dave Robillard wrote:
Your initial reply to me, which was not about the issue at hand
whatsoever - you called me obnoxious and insulting. That counts as a
personal attack in my books, and immediately forced the
Hi all,
following the conclusion of a very long discussion on both LAD and LAU
mailinglists, i would like to invite you all to participate in an event
that should take place on RME's official forum.
The goal is to run a thread on linux audio and RME support. Not a
discussion, but rather just
I am not sure that providing opensource drivers is risk free, and I am a huge
proponent of oss. You do not sound like a lawyer,
I am one.
Better luck next time. ;)
I'd give it one more chance and post a 'rme - take action' letter to lad
and lau which would encourage people to go to
Open source and freedom of IP for me are moral choices.
I have no problem with anybody who tries to live or behave
according to his beliefs.
That would be me.
I *do* have a problem with those
who want to impose their standards onto others that do not
share the same beliefs.
That would
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 15:44, Doug Wellington wrote:
delurk
Most of you don't know me, I'm sure, but I've been working with various forms
of Unix since the 80's. I work as a system adminstrator during the day,
where I deal with about 500 computers of various types, from Linux to Solaris
I think the whole thread got started by the fact that Marek needs the
product,
or feels that he needs it. That he went and bought assuming a linux driver
would appear is maybe naive,
It was naive i admit.
A real conundrum
And this will get worse IMHO.
The oss advocates seem to insist
And anyway, it's not like we're trying to force a religion on them or
something. Open drivers being better is not a belief, it is a fact
It's only a fact modulo your assumptions, which in turn depend on your
perspective. Define 'better'. Philosophers have been busy doing that for
some
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 17:42, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 02:35 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I'd give it one more chance and post a 'rme - take action' letter to lad
and lau which would encourage people to go to the rme forum, tell them
that their using their hw, what kind
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 19:15, Doug Wellington wrote:
Previously:
All this mentioning of belief and church to degrade open source
people is no better than me calling you and RME Nazis. Seems to be a
recurring theme that the person who presents the open source position
makes no personal
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 22:23, Doug Wellington wrote:
Previously:
Ok say you did the drivers, provided support for them, everything went
ok, no ripoffs, say a hundred of sold products as a consequence. After
all that they say we don't share this information with *anyone*
So, did they, or
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 13:52, Thomas Grill wrote:
If 50 persons say Please would you be so kind ...
And another 50 say FY, in the end it's the number that counts. 100
(potential) customers. Each one of use is responsioble for his *own*
statements.
Sorry, maybe we're from different
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 17:00, Esben Stien wrote:
Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
perhaps if more and more ATI customers went for their older cards,
they'd certainly be forced to rethink their policy.
That's what I did. I've been waiting for years to get a new 3d chip,
going
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 17:47, Dave Phillips wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Geez, people, stop talking and
start singing ! Where's Marek's Blues or The RME Fight Song ?? Come
on, the talent's here, we know it is.
unfortunately i don't have a gear to record with.
Really
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:56:03PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
Alfons Adriaensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the same reasons, there would be no need to upgrade your Linux
version, and you don't need driver updates. The current
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 23:47, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 23:23 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:56:03PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
Alfons Adriaensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the same
Anyway I am not sure how much more can be said, the should we allow
binary drivers argument has been rehashed many times and it's something
we have to agree to disagree on. You are free to not buy it. If I
choose to buy an Nvidia card I know that I will have to use a binary
driver but
I also
asked you to not be so obstreperous in your posts. You'll get more
respect and attention by being polite.
Jan, i think Daves posts were pretty ok in that respect and pretty much
hit the nail on the head.
Talking about teaching morals - i think our egos can handle more than
that. ;)
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 00:13, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-12 at 03:38 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:09, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:32:30PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
I'd rather not have people with this ignorant 'closed drivers
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 03:27, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I also
asked you to not be so obstreperous in your posts. You'll get more
respect and attention by being polite.
Jan, i think Daves posts were pretty ok in that respect and pretty much
hit the nail on the head.
Talking about
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:52, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 20:15, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 00:29, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 16:37, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2004-30-11 at 17:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
No one said they were good. I just
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 02:48, Paul Davis wrote:
The point is not that someone might reverse engineer and do a
worse/better oss driver. The point is that nvidia, ati, xgi, matrox
*should* do open source drivers.
The point is that nobody has persuaded them of this, and in the matrox
case, they
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 12:10, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:49:26AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
But it's for the interest of *everyone* here.
I have read the entire thread on the RME forum, and I really
don't think it is in our interest at all.
So i think the more
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:09, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:32:30PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
I'd rather not have people with this ignorant 'closed drivers = good'
opinion turning Linux into yet another Windows. If you want a sh***y
proprietary OS, there's plenty to
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:09, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:32:30PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
I'd rather not have people with this ignorant 'closed drivers = good'
opinion turning Linux into yet another Windows. If you want a sh***y
proprietary OS, there's plenty to
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 23:43, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 17:32 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
I'd rather not have people with this ignorant 'closed drivers = good'
opinion turning Linux into yet another Windows.
So Linus is ignorant, huh? Have you thought about why he allows
The latest hatefilled posts on the RME list about the ALSA driver issue are
surely not helpful
Saying nothing is *never* helpful. Showing your dissatisfaction at least
*sometimes* helps. We'll see.
Marek
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 01:27, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 15:55, Marek Peteraj wrote:
The latest hatefilled posts on the RME list about the ALSA driver issue
are
surely not helpful
Saying nothing is *never* helpful.
That is true.
Showing your
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:14, John Check wrote:
On Saturday 27 November 2004 07:43 am, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 11:06, MarC wrote:
what about creating a wiki website to submit soundcard experiences?
This also seems like a good idea to me, and it would be cool to have
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 21:43, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 01:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the
technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally,
open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be
fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:36, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Did this happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer.
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the
long and colorful history of pro audio
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:35, R Parker wrote:
--- Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to
say this. Personally,
open source
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:03, tim hall wrote:
Last Saturday 27 November 2004 21:36, Lee Revell was like:
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Did this happen?
Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer.
Just to save people some googling here is a thread that
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote:
[Marek Peteraj]
RME has provided
Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it
in order to become a legitimate alternative to
proprietary solutions.
Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the
name) who did
Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market)
demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the
handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my
hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source
drivers anymore, so why
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:53, Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote:
[Marek Peteraj]
RME has provided
Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it
in order to become a legitimate alternative
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:20:33 -0500, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Fine with me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to
call RME for support, same as on any
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 10:27, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote:
Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your
doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer
just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source
developers.
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:58, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:25:09 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote:
One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP
because korg does not provide support
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:32, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:19:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 11:06, MarC wrote:
what about creating a wiki website to submit soundcard experiences?
This also seems like a good idea to me, and it would be cool to have a
knowledgebase like that.
However i think that doing a survey in order to measure how big the
linux audio market is
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 19:36, Georg Rudolph wrote:
Please, let's not be too harsh. I recently bought the pcmcia based
multiface from RME, only because it has linux support, and it works
great, on both kernels. Of course, firewire is cooler, but there is this
way out.
Not for me. :)
anyway
I assume that RME has developped their own protocols, which they don't
want to share. And frankly I can understand their point of view, because
I think an awfull lot of time (=money) must have been spent to develop
an efficient protocol.
1. So they haven't invested the a comparable
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
2. I can only understand the point of view of open source developers
here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that
they didn't get back
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:48, Tim Hockin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:34:17AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw
support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
might concern everyone in the near future
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 20:50, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 04:22 -0500, Rick B wrote:
I kind of got the impression that the annoucement was just pertaining to
RME *Firewire* audio interfaces.
Consider that they have released some specs for their HDSP hammerfall
series, which
Hi all,
sorry for crossposting, just wanted to let everybody know:
The official statement is that there will be no support for ALSA (Linux)
FireWire drivers from RME. In other words there will be no such drivers,
as it is impossible to write them without tons of hardware and software
I forgot, this is the product i'm talking about:
http://www.rme-audio.de/firewire/ff800.htm
Marek
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 00:49, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Marek Peteraj hat gesagt: // Marek Peteraj wrote:
Me and Benno talked to Matthias personally during Musikmesse, he was
friendly and seemed to be open with regards to future cooperation with
oss developers.
This is oss
Paul:
paul returns from a week away
% f +gtk-in
% rmm cur-last
% f +gtkmm-in
% rmm cur-last
% f +new
% rmm `pick -from wine-devel`
% rmm `pick -from xdg-list`
and then i can put all those commands in script and next time just do:
% clean-mail
that's what i call a mail client.
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:09, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:59:41PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
I didn't. What I said was that those who complain because things
do no look as they are used to, are in general the same people that
just do not master the application
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:52, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Alfons Adriaensen:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:24:59PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Tim Hockin:
I know Linux people love to claim how choice is our strength, but I think
it's bunk. Linux needs a single GUI
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:03, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
And this is exactly what explains the clutter in ardour UI.
Marek, your comments on the logic and consistency of the Ardour
GUI were IMHO justifed, and I'm probably
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:08, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So you call not removing disturbing non-efficient and stupid UI designs
which make your life harder and all that -- fallacy and dumbing-down??
No, I never said
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:10, Tim Orford wrote:
i would be very careful about what lessons are to be drawn from
Protools. Some of the reasons are purely historical and no longer
relevant. Hardware bundling and marketing are factors. It is also
a very polished, reliable product.
Agreed. OTOH
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:33, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:25:28PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:03, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
And this is exactly what explains the clutter
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:58, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:31:45PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:08, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So you call not removing disturbing non-efficient
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 18:04, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
[...]
Sorry Fons, but define acceptable! Please!
I will define as non-acceptable the implication:
Paul uses a text based mail client
=
this explains why his GUI designs are cluttered.
It would be acceptable and in
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 17:19, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:08:06PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Are you seriously sure? We're in the marketing hype thread which i've
started. ;)
It's not all about you, even if you started it :-)
Seriously now, I see your point
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 21:15, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:54:58PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Fons' Moog HP filter is a complex piece of DSP i suspect.
No, it's actually quite simple :-) The most complex one is
the four-band parametric filter I released recently
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 11:49, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:06:00AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 21:15, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
- When I saw the collection of VST plugins that Paul Davis used
to show his VST hosting in Karlsruhe, I asked myself
Political issues:
1. we'd need to centralize the LADSPA scene on the web, using the
www.ladspa.org site, building a unified ladspa directory, each entry
would describe the plugin(category, author, decription, purpose)
At least? :)
Marek
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 14:05, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:44:53 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote
There are various kinds of users of audio SW; their requirements
and opinions will vary. In my experience, most serious and
professional users prefer a UI that is first of all
If developers don't know how to operate their own apps then we have a
serious problem :)
Marek
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 14:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, you are correct. In JAMin it's center click. Jeez, I wrote it, I should
know these things :-\
Jan
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:32 ,
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 14:46, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:42:32PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I can give you a perfect example - a *reference* DAW system - ProTools.
Which, in ver. 6, has gone eye-candy.
Guess why.
The core app is still pretty plain (apart from a bit
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:15, Ben wrote:
Sounds interesting. This is what I do for a living. But would any of
the linux audio developers actually follow it?
You mean you're a usability engineer?
Marek
-Ben Loftis
Maybe some kind of audio app interface design proposal is in order:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:15, Tim Orford wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:46:36PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:42:32PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I can give you a perfect example - a *reference* DAW system - ProTools.
Which, in ver. 6, has gone eye-candy
I couldn't resist.
snip
a UI that is designed
by people who understand how something works and how it is
used, rather than by the marketing department.
snip
marketing, which has been defined
as 'the art of disturbing rational decision making'.
Let me give you a perfect example.
The
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 20:33, Ben wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:15, Ben wrote:
Sounds interesting. This is what I do for a living. But would any
of
the linux audio developers actually follow it?
You mean you're a usability engineer?
Marek
Er, yes. In addition to
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 11:04, Pelle Nilsson wrote:
Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
Second thing is that the way you percieve them shouldn't change as you
switch applications. Which is what VST perfectly fulfills - it provides
its own UI.
If I have 100 LADSPA plug-ins
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:11, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What linux audio offers is
technology. No comfort at all. Right now it's all just academic
software.
This, and the lack of marketing departments is exactly why I am here.
I don't want
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more conferences per year, one of them being
huge(guadec) with sponsors, larger companies involved, and *most* of
*all* they're
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 22:38, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
Hi!
With the recent talk about plugin guis and stuff I think
it's well fitting to present a knob design experiment I
created for a LDrum redesign.
SVG vector graphics (prefered by Peter and me)
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 22:37, Dan Hollis wrote:
i think its possible to get your point across without being a dick.
sadly, you didn't do it.
I always don't, you should already know that, i'm known for that ;)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 23:21, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 04:49, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:06:00AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 21:15, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
- When I saw the collection of VST plugins that Paul Davis used
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 23:18, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:26:07 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I don't want to see linux apps turning into slickly hyped lifestyle
products like the rest of the music software business. We should push
the advantages we have,
What
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:07, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
But you guys *are* following proprietary software in general. Ardour is
a DAW just like cubase is, while SSM resembles reaktor in its
philosophy. LADSPAs are plugins like VSTs are, etc etc etc
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:24, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
Personally speaking, as a free software developer I don't care if my
programs are deemed as sucessful, they work for me
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:34, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 19:27, Marek Peteraj wrote:
If you want to organize something go ahead and organize it, but
please don't tell me that I have to conform to some consumer driven
vision of the great commercial future of Linux Audio
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 02:27, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:07, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
But you guys *are* following proprietary software in general. Ardour is
a DAW just like cubase is, while SSM resembles reaktor in its
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 16:11, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What you guys blatantly underestimate is that in order to bring your
apps to users (= having success, sorry ;) it doesn't suffice if you're a
developer. You have to be a good manager, have
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:08, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:50, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:24, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:19, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:08, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Most probably you will find out (when/if other developers care to speak
out) that this view is shared by many, if not all, developers, and not
just in the audio world.
Simple logic has it that you just can't do a perfect app if your
motivation isn't 'to do it for lots of users'.
You guys stated that it's just your hobby and your doing that mostly for
yourself and the other devs that did other apps perhaps if somebody
wants to give it a go. I'm fine with that.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:11, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:40, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more conferences per year
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:18, Steve Harris wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:45:53 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
VST plugins tend to be rather complex, offering tons of features and
eyecandish GUIs, while LADSPAs usually offer limited functionality, no
GUI at all(hosts usually provide simple
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
