[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA needs & wishes

Chris Cannam cannam at all-day-breakfast.com
Sat Jan 27 21:53:16 UTC 2007

On Saturday 27 Jan 2007 18:57, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> Robert Jonsson <rj at spamatica.se> writes:
> > On Saturday 27 January 2007 06:47, Loki Davison wrote:
> >> why are you coding new stuff for a depreciated system? Why not
> >> LV2?
> >
> > And why should you code for a plugin standard that nothing
> > supports? [...]
> nothing? i'm aware of 3 hosts that can host lv2 plugins.

What are they?  Do they do anything else, besides host LV2 plugins?

There does seem to be a habit here for people to describe things as 
"deprecated", when what they mean is they don't like them very much 
themselves, they no longer consider them state of the art, and there's 
a technically better alternative that isn't widely supported yet.  (The 
ALSA sequencer API is another current example.)  It's an arrogant and 
antisocial habit.

For someone who wants to write effects plugins for a reasonably large 
audience of Linux users to use right now, there's one choice: LADSPA.  
DSSI has been a technically better choice for a few years now, but it 
has few hosts and I'm not sure whether all of those even support DSSI 
plugins as effects -- although they should.  LV2 is also a technically 
better choice, but even less widely supported so far.  That will 
change, but it's far too soon to be suggesting it's the only Linux 
plugin API worth writing for, especially as porting from LADSPA to LV2 
(and/or supporting both) should be easy enough.  You can argue for 
driving adoption of LV2 by writing cool plugins for it, but that's 
quite different from saying you shouldn't be writing for LADSPA at all.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list