As a general note. What comes up clear from this discussion in my opinion, is the fact that male has a clear idea how things should work on Unix/Linux and so also in Non-Daw. Many times (not always) he is right imho and he has clear idea how to solve problems, just a little different then most people would do it, but often better. In fact, it is one of the reasons why NSM is a success. He is also very strict in this and again, this is one of the reasons why NSM works.
So thank you for NON and for being strict even while it can be frustrating for others, including me, sometimes. So I also fully understand that at some point a other programmer decides to write his own GUI. In fact, I would probably do the same if I was a programmer. As a user or less experienced programmer maybe, you don't always care for the technical perfect solution, you just want that something works or is at least possible. And if someone fixes a scaling issue, you see that as improvement as a user, while it's probably wiser to fix this the right way. In the long run, this strictness is probably the best thing to do. I think Ardour got a lot of criticism about developing slowly, but it just a very complex task to write a DAW. I think people are pretty happy about the audio part now. In the same realm, I still think non-sequencer is potentially one of the best composing applications on Linux, much better then people think it is actually. I'm not using it though, cause I think it lacks some features or some features are not finished, I think I do need. So features do matter too I think. But I don't understand why seq24 gets a lot of contributions, but with some small improvements, non-sequencer could be much better imho (I could be biased). Maybe the strong views and strictness of male and his high standards make it harder to contribute for other programmers, which is something I can imagine. I've always been against the fork and the way it's been done has been disrespectful towards male and a self-overestimation of the people who did it and a underestimation of the accomplishments of the NON project imho. But I think it's even in the benefit of male to have a alternative GUI available. He can point to a other GUI if people are not happy with the minimal version and he don't have to bother too much about many requests from people like me anymore. The bad part of the fork, is the way they did it and how they did present it. If there is something good to say about it, then it is the fact that they care about making NSM more usable in the linuxaudio world and that they stick with the NSM API (as much as possible?). Having more GUIs available is something unavoidable imho and doesn't have to be a bad thing. What would be fair to the original developer is that people try to contribute as much as possible to the original project, by trying to find a solution for it first and send patches as much as possible. Focus on the technical discussion and leave out the personal friction as much as possible.
