On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Kjetil Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Kjetil Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think Jack is the wrong solution for a DAW either. But Jack never got finished.

It has a wonderful API, but it shouldn't be a struggle for a program to create a jack client

if a jack server isn't running. (there were a lot of talk about this around 10 years ago,

but the end result never became as good as it should I think).

i am not sure what the problem is here. if the client doesn't specify anything, then the server will start automatically with the same parameters as it did last time. this has worked for years. no?

 

 

Well, I've never used it. It doesn't feel safe. There is no obvious place to

check that it does what it's supposed to.

You're sure of that? Every one of your JACK clients explicitly avoids auto-start?

The mechanism for this is extremely simple and robust. The contents of the file ~/.jackdrc are executed. You can check the result with ps aux or a graphical equivalent.

 

, plus that it

would provide an enormous number of fun and interesting programming challenges

for the implementors of that functionality.

and no effective difference for users over and above the current auto-start scenario.

you also missed out how EVERY single possible JACK client now has to have some way to bring up a server control dialog, that will work no matter what GUI toolkit the client was written with (or no GUI toolkit).

is this supposed to be a serious suggestion?