[LAU] Re: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen
k.s.matheussen at notam02.no
Thu Jun 14 08:53:03 EDT 2007
> > Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not
> > about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried
> > traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor).
> Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
Bad wordings. I ment that traversos interface is about efficiency, or at
least that the main focus is about efficiency. Thats how it appears
too me. It might be simple and intuitive too though, I haven't given that
much thought. :-)
> > And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't
> > think ardour's user interface is very efficient . Ardour is great, but
> > it would have been even greater if all the developers on ardour spent all
> > of their time exclusively working on making ardour's user interface more
> > efficient to use. Traverso is an excellent program to look at to improve
> > the situation.
> > 
> > http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/2007-March/004085.html
> Of course Ardour can be improved by looking at other DAWs and seeing
> what works and what doesn't. I have read through this post and agree
> with most of your suggestions. A number of them have been implemented
> in Ardour2.
> But I'm a little confused why you would say you have "a small agenda
> too, against Ardour." Submitting feature requests and reporting bugs
> (as you have) is very constructive and helpful to further development.
> So I wouldn't view that as having an agenda against Ardour.
Well, I would like for another daw to take over so that the good
programmers would work on that other daw instead. Unless; Ardour either
gets a significantly more efficient user interface, or it gets support for
an extension language so that it will be possible to customize it without
dwelling into thousands of lines of C++ code.
More information about the Linux-audio-user