On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 23:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote: > It is good (tm) to define broad standards that encompass a variety of > situations. But usually broad means also thin, which results in it > being less helpful for each specific situation it pretends to be > applied to. > > And no matter how broad you try to make it, I bet someone comes up > with a feature that is absolutely essential for his/her purposes that > the standard should cover but fails to. > > How broad do we want it? Wouldn't it be a good idea to survey what > people are doing with LADSPA and what are they missing in it? > > Personally, I don't need any more modular synths, thanks.
I'm going to assume this is a shot at me for rather obvious reasons. Since you must know, my thoughts are mostly with Ardour, which will soon be OSC controlled. You may have noticed that Ardour isn't a modular synth. Fancy that. > I miss the most in LADSPA: > - Sensible GUIs. *sigh* someone just had to do it, didn't they? We don't need another inifinitely long GUI toolkit pissing match thread that is guaranteed to lead absolutely nowhere, thanks. LAD_S_PA2 is not going to have GUIs. http://dssi.sf.net. Enjoy. Now can we please have a productive discussion about fixing very real problems with LADSPA without /that/ *&%$% topic ruining everything, yet again, thanks? -DR-
