<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
(I never paied attention that reply-to is not positionned by LAU...)<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">Here's what I've been writing.<br>
<br>
<br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 04/05/2015 20:56, Bruno Ruviaro a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALR3z0iMKFcSEvP8KSeD1g3dDt1wNykbpJCFrRasz7o1G1Bsag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Monday, May 4, 2015, Ivan K <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ivan_521521@yahoo.com">ivan_521521@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have some
question regarding versions of Ardour<br>
that people are using.<br>
<br>
Currently, I am running Fedora 20, and their<br>
software repository has two versions of Ardour available:<br>
<br>
ardour-2.8.16-12.fc20<br>
ardour-3.5.403-1.fc20<br>
<br>
I seem to recall that in the past, despite<br>
Ardour3 being available, some people were still preferring<br>
to use Ardour2. This seems to be supported by the<br>
fact that Fedora offers both versions.<br>
<br>
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think some people stayed with A2 just because it was
working well for them and didn't want to run risks or change
their workflow. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm one of these people.<br>
Actually, I've been using Ardour2 for many years, but I was OK to
switch to A3, especially because I was lacking several things (for
example the fact that MIDI bindings weren't recalled after closing
the session).<br>
Still I use Ardour for audio recording only, I have other habits
concerning MIDI, and feel in ease with the modular approach
allowed by Jack, so it was not absolutely necessary for me to
swtich to A3.<br>
I tried (and am always trying, by the way), but I've experienced
many bugs, including the big ones around MIDI things (MIDI being
un-editable, then MIDI files being lost, and so on), and finally,
I kept on Ardour2 for the moment, because, once again, I don't
need Ardour to care about the MIDI.<br>
As I work in a studio and also for audio-engineers schools, I
prefer to have something which works reliably and that I trust in,
than a more bleeding-edge soft, and as far as I've tried for now
(but I must say I didn't try A3 for 4 monthes), it lead me to stay
on A2.<br>
I use Debian, and use the stable version when it's about schools,
for example.<br>
<br>
There is something else too. I'm not so keen of A3 GUI. It's not
that far from A2, but I'd like the sobriety of A2, and, more
precisely, I really don't like the way Zoom/Scrolling is done in
A3, and I really miss the scroll bars (mightbe I can custom my
preferences so that it looks like that, I didn't try) of A2.<br>
To end up, but that's not really an Ardour pb, much more my
workflow problem, but I feel A3 quite less usable in i3wm, as you
need to recall much more key bindings to be able to close the
windows you've opened (i3 doesn't provide window decoration) as
there is no "OK" nor "cancel".<br>
<br>
Well, that's my reasons. By that time, I would be sad not to have
Ardour2 (still, I've not tried A4).<br>
<br>
(to be honest, for my own audio-engineering works, I use non-mixer
/ non-timeline, and sometimes ecasound)<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
Aurélien<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
ORL
AMMD - Freak & Free Arts Coo[r]p
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ammd.net">www.ammd.net</a> - 095 234 72 48</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>