[linux-audio-user] some thoughts about Linux audio software documentation

[John Check]

On Thursday 12 August 2004 03:34 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
> John Check wrote:
> ...
>
> > One act gigging with this stuff is worth a dozen coders when it comes to
> > legitimizing the platform. There's so much potential with what's here
> > today that it blows my mind, but if it's "by geeks, for geeks" it really
> > limits were
>
>    not that long ago it wasn't even that. The sound/audio/music software
> in linux is improving rapidly. obviously, you get the by geeks for geeks
> stuff first because it cannot be any other way - it takes time to make
> the program stable enough to be usable by general public.

Yup. There's a definite progression. I'm not unfamiliar with development 
cycles, as far as does it _have_ to be that way, it's a debatable point.
"That's how it is" OTOH, is the reality of the situation so I accept it. I'll 
say this though, I don't know anybody that doesn't have an ego, and certainly 
not creative types. Like they used to say back in the space age "Does Macy's 
tell Gimble's?". IOW, that we're supposed to operating in an open environment 
doesn't negate human nature. 
Yes, for deep technical discussions, the participants need to be qualified, 
but when one is blazing a new trail it's better to chop off the branch that's 
in your way than it is to let it smack the person behind you in the face 
because after all, they're an explorer too. ;)


>    plus it's not only about individual apps, everything from kernel to
> hw drivers to libraries to apps is being developed, it takes a lot of
> effort and time to make it work together. And it's not always pretty:-)
>

Affirmative

>    I guess you know that but your email lacks the acknowledgement of the
> tendency (even though it accurately describes current state), so I
> thought I'd add some perspective.
>

Gotcha. 
There's is a tendency though, for free software developers to put some things 
off because "We'll make it right for 1.0". Which in itself is good, but we 
have a quality obsession (which is also good) whereby a 1.0 release really 
means something, unlike commercial software. 
The upshot of this is as the code matures, decisions that were made early on 
become hairier and hairier to address. Ironically, this can lead to massive 
redesign and rewrites which pretty much wipes out most of the accumulated 
documentation in terms of accuracy.

> 	erik