On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Paul Davis wrote:
> is there a reason why your program is not written as a
> LADSPA plugin?
> is there a reason why your program is not written as a
> JACK client?
I'm not the Gnome Wave Cleaner guy but I have some opinions
on this particular topic... I can appreciate the work that has already
been put into these projects. I've been lurking for awhile and I remember
that it took a *year* to decide on the license for LADSPA.
But, IMHO, these projects aren't finished yet. Without a GUI
standard, the LADSPA specification is half-done. I can appreciate the
discussions that have been held so far. I just haven't seen much movement
lately.
As far as JACK... Where's the documentation? When's the next
*stable* release? Again IMHO, it's easier to code and create packages
using a fully documented and stable release (say, JACK 1.0.3) rather
than last Thursday's CVS. From my point of view, it looks like JACK is
still beta/unstable.
I don't mean to flame anyone or put down the hard work that has
been put into these projects so far. I'm just explaining why some may
hesitate to use LADSPA or JACK.
-- Kevin Conder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
