[LAD] Small sequencers

Jonathan Moore Liles malnourite at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 02:03:54 UTC 2008

Malte Steiner <steiner at block4.com> writes:

>>> I just stumbled upon the Non Sequencer, which seems to be nice for
>>> live performance as well: http://non.tuxfamily.org/
>> About seq24.
>> http://non.tuxfamily.org/MANUAL.html
>> 7. Sister Projects
>> 3'd section
> I read that, pretty bold statement. Dont see that SEQ24 is that
> unoptimized, I think its rather good. I wonder why the creator didn't
> jump onboard seq24 and improved it. Typical open source behaviour, but
> maybe he is heading in another direction. I hope the NON is good in live
> context, any experience, anyone?
> Seq24 is doing 90% what I expect from it and about the rest I am
> thinking of joining that project instead of creating another one.

Do you *really* want me to go into more detail? Don't get me wrong. I
used seq24 extensively. I read the code inside and out and I know what
it's limitations are.  I'm a practical person. I'm a free-software
developer, not an 'open source' developer (whatever that means). I
needed a program to suit my needs. I looked at seq24, I looked at
Dino, and a hundred other seqs that didn't really provide anything
close to what I wanted. I know I would not have been happy with a
version of seq24 with phrases tacked-on but retaining the same tired
old piano role + timeline interface--not to mention the wildly
inefficient drawing algoirthms and datastructures. By the time I
ripped out all that's broken in seq24 there would have been nothing
left. Therefore I decided to start from scratch. I would have *loved*
to have been able to use Dino's libdinoseq as my engine instead of
writting all that from scratch, but, unfortunately, there's more to
code compatibility than just licensing. The libdinoseq design just
doesn't mesh at all with what I wanted to do in Non.  That being said,
seq24's design is not highly compatible with JACK MIDI either--and I
decided going into Non that it was going to be pure JACK MIDI.

I bet if you asked Rob Buse wheter he would like to be able to take
the time to do a complete re-write on seq24 he would say, emphatically
yes, as would any other author of a medium to large sized program. If
someone is totally in love with seq24, then I would love to see them
put in the work required to clean up and optimize it--it would not be
impossible, just a lot of (boring) work.

And, BTW, I'm on record saying *far* harsher things about other
software--seq24 has been good to me, all things considered. But I
definitely outgrew it.

Since when is competition a bad thing anyway? ;-)

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list