>From: Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca>
>
>I don't really understand what this software would actually do. Seems
>like such an overly-broad generic idea.. audio, graphics, modular
>synths, software, hardware, editor ??
Yes, it is generic idea because visual programming (icons + wires)
is used everywhere. I planned that our editor would support specially
audio related applications: Nord Modular type, Reaktor type, and
simpler type editors. Graphics related editor for, e.g., Cinepaint
would be much simpler than Nord Modular type editor.
The editor would only give the graphical graph/dataflow editor:
icons + wires, subgraphs, export/import. People still would have to
write software to give meaning to the graph/dataflow.
I find it very difficult to code the graphical editors and other GUIs.
Mostly I write C code without GUI. Now if there already would be
a generic editor available, I would take one and write suitable
callbacks, and have the GUI in a few hours.
Glade, a GUI builder, can help but it fails badly for what really
would be usable. They should go a far beyond the widget level.
Note, we do have such graph editors (in PD, in Quasimodo, etc.) but the
problem is that they are limited to some particular concept. I want
use all concepts in the same editor.
Regards,
Juhana
Hi,
i just compiled qsynth-0.1.0 and i would lie to report on my findings:
On Debian, the qt-libs are installed to
/usr/lib/
and the headers to
/usr/include/qt3
There's no QTDIR per se. So i exported it to be /usr. This way, the
configure script finds the lib, but the following test fails:
checking whether QTDIR environment variable is set... /usr/
checking for Qt library... qt-mt
checking for Qt library version >= 3.1.1... no; Qt 3.1.1 or greater is
required
the entry from config.log:
----
configure:1167: c++ -o conftest -g -O2 -I/usr//include conftest.C
-L/usr//lib -L/usr/X11R6/lib 1>&5
configure:1157:21: qglobal.h: No such file or directory
configure:1161:2: #error Qt library 3.1.1 or greater required.
configure: failed program was:
#line 1156 "configure"
#include "confdefs.h"
#include "qglobal.h"
int main() {
#if QT_VERSION < 0x030101
#error Qt library 3.1.1 or greater required.
#endif
; return 0; }
----
Hmm, looking at the commandline to compile this, it cannot work, since
the include path is /usr/lib. so i changed this in the configure script:
#include "confdefs.h"
#include "qglobal.h"
to
#include "qt3/confdefs.h"
#include "qt3/qglobal.h"
Then i get an error again: cannot find confdefs.h. So i check my qt3
include dir and it is not there. so i removed the line from the qt3 test
program from configure. And now the test runs fine and the program
compiles nicely..
My suggestion: Add a --with-qt-inc-dir and a --with-qt-lib-dir switch to
the configure script, so "non standard" [though the qt way itself is non
standard] qt installations can be found, to.
I still wonder where that confdefs header file lives on my computer.
gonna start a find / now ;) Maybe there's a more grcefule way to handle
this configure problem. /me doesn't know it..
Flo
--
music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm
Hello.
NMEdit was mentioned in my list. I'm in their devel list but
it has been quite quiet.
I will check Graphviz better in a few days but can one make
Quasimodo or Nord Modular type "graphs" with it? In a quick
look I saw some composite icons (not widgets?), but I feel
Graphviz is not very usable for us.
-*-
Both the standalone editor and the embedded editor would be needed.
Standalone editor could use sockets and shared memory for communicating
between the editor and application. Embedded editor could be launch
by filling in a callback table and calling the editor:
GtkWidget *editor;
editor = editor_create(callbacktable);
gtk_widget_show(editor);
It could be slightly more complex if GTK is not the only supported
toolkit. We also could have editor_menu_create() if one wants
attach the editor related menu to application's menubar.
-*-
Should we provide a standard (XML script?) for building module
interfaces? New GUI widgets would be included as soon as somebody
writes them. This kind of approach would be needed in creating
plugin GUIs and environments (a la Logic Audio).
Should we allow module author to code the GUI for the module using
directly GTK?
How GMPI handles the plugin GUIs? I see that we would do an overlapping
work here.
-*-
Assume I have written a module GUI with GTK. I load the calling
function to the editor and create the GUI with
modulewidget = mymodule_create_gui();
gtk_widget_show(modulewidget);
Now, can I trace the whole widget hierarchy starting from "modulewidget"?
In GTK, can one attach names to the widgets? E.g., I have a small
pixmap of a connector where a cable is plugged in. I want name all
these widgets as "connector". Then in the editor I would search all
connectors by tracing the widget hierarchy and looking for "connector"
names.
We need to know where these connectors are located because we want be
able to plug the cables in. Alternatively we could describe the
locations in a file, but then we would be bound to the fixed shape GUIs.
-*-
In gtk related mailing lists I have already suggested a general way
how to implement a zoom in the editor (Widget Portal). If that is not
possible in GTK, then I see no other way than write new widgets with
a zoom ability.
Regards,
Juhana
Hello.
I would like to clarify that the project originally was not about
writing a common modular synth patch editor. The idea was not that
we would have a common modular synth patch format.
The idea was to have an editor which anyone could take and configure
for their own system (audio, graphics). All the whistles and bells
would be there to re-implement the existing editors.
All individual software would still be individual software having
nothing common. Search for the ultimate modular synth system would
still continue. It certainly is easier to extend the existing modular
synths if the editor supports the features.
However, this development could lead to a standard module GUI system.
After the project is finished we would have:
-Discussions, ideas
-Technical information
-Example implementations
-A code library
-Complete editor
Maybe.
Regards,
Juhana
JACK RELEASE 0.94.0
JACK is a low-latency audio server, written primarily for the GNU/Linux
operating system. It can connect a number of different applications to
an audio device, as well as allowing them to share audio between
themselves. Its clients can run in their own processes (ie. as normal
applications), or can they can run within the JACK server (ie. as a
"plugin").
JACK is different from other audio server efforts in that it has been
designed from the ground up to be suitable for professional audio work.
This means that it focuses on two key areas: synchronous execution of
all clients, and low latency operation.
JACK's webpage is at http://jackit.sf.net .
CHANGES:
Mostly minor, internal changes.
* Added missing extern "C" {} for better C++ support.
* Added missing copyright header.
* Better placement of watchdog check so it doesn't interfere with
freewheeling mode.
* Fixed option parsing problems
* ALSA driver reports actual samplerate, not requested samplerate.
* Handles hardware where playback and capture rates differ better.
* Support for native endian S24_3 format used by USB soundcards.
* jack_metro example ported to new transport API.
* cleaned up prototype declarations for jack_initialize_shm() and
jack_cleanup_shm().
* Eliminated calls to jack_error() when jack_client_new() fails
because the server was not running.
* Eliminated other calls to fprintf() in libjack.
* Won't try and compile iec61883 if libraw1394 is below
version 0.10.0.
* Internal bug fixes.
* Updated documentation.
Taybin Rutkin
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 13:05, iriXx wrote:
> Marek Peteraj wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 12:27, iriXx wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Marek Peteraj wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 03:22, iriXx wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
> >>>>>present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>comments?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Marek
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>yes.
> >>>>there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be on the
> >>>>stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development forum.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>such as?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>myself.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Cool. Are you a visitor? Are you a sponsor? Are you leading a oss linux
> >audio project? are you contributing to such projects?
> >
> >
> >
>
> i'm a performer, composer, singer,
That means that you're a Linux Audio User.
> and a leading lobbyist for Free
> Software
Isn't Richard Stallman a leading lobbyist?
> and for the use of Free licensing in music. i'm also part of
> iCommons - the project to port Creative Commons to compatibility with EU
> law. check out www.copyleftmedia.org.uk.
The term 'copyleft' definitely isn't compatible with EU law, whether
it's copyright law or any other part of intellectual property law.
> i'll be there demonstrating
> live vocal improvisation with plugins, and portable setups for live
> improvisation, working alongside Steve and Daniel.
That means you and Daniel are going to help out the Linux Audio
Developers on that stand.
How is Sounds Expo different from ZKM or LinuxTag? *What* *exactly* are
we trying to promote? Shouldn't we all promote and protect the things we
value the most - oss linux audio projects? Are private mailing lists and
sudden consortiums the way it's done?
Marek
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 12:27, iriXx wrote:
> Marek Peteraj wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 03:22, iriXx wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
> >>> present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
> >>>
> >>> comments?
> >>>
> >>> Marek
> >>>
> >>>
> >>yes.
> >>there are people /other/ than linux audio developers who will be on the
> >>stand at Sounds Expo. its not just an audio development forum.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >such as?
> >
> >
>
> myself.
Cool. Are you a visitor? Are you a sponsor? Are you leading a oss linux
audio project? are you contributing to such projects?
>
> >
> >
> >>> I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD and
> >>> oss, linux audio projects such as:
> >>>
> >>> (in no particular order)
> >>>
> >>> *Ardour *ALSA *Jack *JAMin *LADSPA+swh-plugins *LinuxSampler
> >>> *Lilypond etc
> >>>
> >>> Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>i believe Daniel is planning the event....
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So then let him speak for himself.
> >
> >
>
> why are you replying offlist?
I'm not. I accidentally hit 'reply to all' - that's why you got a cc.
Marek
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:09, andrea.glorioso(a)agnula.org wrote:
> Daniel James <daniel(a)linuxaudio.org> writes:
>
> >> Is there any chance you'd postpone it and announce the project and
> >> the beta site on lad for further discussing before launching it?
> >
> > No. As I've already explained, my view is that membership of a
> > particular mailing list does not confer veto rights over any project
> > that happens to have the words Linux and Audio in its name.
>
> [snipping a lot of stuff]
>
> I honestly can't understand what the fuss is all about. If someone
> wants to contribute, well, just contribute.
>
> If we failed to contact every possible linux audio developer around,
> just drop a note that *you* are going to contact him and put the list
> in Cc:.
done.
>
> If you feel the rules are not the most equitable possible, suggest
> (practical) modifications.
>
> If you feel that a more "community-oriented" approach (whatever that
> means) is due, I'm sure we can officially create a "community
> relationship" position inside the Consortium.
?
"The consortium aims to co-ordinate joint projects between members,
collaborate on the promotion of Linux based systems for audio tasks, and
provide a single point of contact for both prospective Linux users and
industry partners."
IIUC it should serve and protect the community and its members. Isn't
LAD such single point of contact? Who are you trying to help?
>
> If you feel that <FILL IN THE BLANKS>, well, you're welcome to give
> your help.
>
> Oh, and a small hint: there is people in here who have bben around
> from *before* 1999, so - even assuming that "being around" and "doing
> the right thing" have a cause-effect relationship - nobody is going to
> be impressed by a somewhat "veteran" attitude.
All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the *only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.
>
> I hope we can stop this childish attitude and actually get some work
> done (this is usually the moment when people start to disappear).
So keeping such projects confidential until "ready", and not accepting a
community place although it's been here from 1997 or so isn't childish?
Marek
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 11:43, Daniel James wrote:
> > Is there any chance you'd postpone it and announce the project and
> > the beta site on lad for further discussing before launching it?
>
> No. As I've already explained, my view is that membership of a
> particular mailing list does not confer veto rights over any project
> that happens to have the words Linux and Audio in its name.
>
> > Unfortunately, not much people did know about it, except those
> > you've contacted.
>
> er... perhaps that's because I haven't made the initial public
> announcement yet, which will go out tomorrow. I've been working on
> this for less than two weeks, and some things take a few days to
> prepare.
I could help with that. I didn't know about that.
>
> > there are lots of people who would like to
> > contribute to such project and lots of people with great ideas on
> > how to move on. It's just different when you make decisions on your
> > own.
>
> We obviously have very different ideas about project management. Where
> would the Linux kernel be if Linus hadn't started it by himself? (not
> that I'm comparing my technical ability to Linus's for one moment.)
> The alternative is to pre-announce the project, then form a committee
> to discuss the issues for 20 years or more - examples would be
> Xanadu, or GNU Hurd, or the lean and stable version of Windows.
>
> I know from experience with libre software, wireless networks and many
> other areas that it's all very well talking about a project, but if
> there isn't one or two people to actually do the work then it won't
> happen. You can call it leadership if you like, but I'm not out to
> found a dictatorship here. I just happen to be the only person who
> bothered registering the domain name and committed to seeing the
> project through to launch.
>
> > Discussion is what shapes a project
>
> No, action shapes a project. Discussion without action is just a
> pressure wave in air.
>
> > The problem is that we should follow
> > basic principles of democracy. This didn't happen.
>
> I think you're pre-judging an organisation that hasn't even launched
> yet. If you read the Policy page of the website, you'll see I have
> deliberately set up an organisation with a management board made up
> of members representatives, which oversees the Director.
>
> > Did any voting
> > happen?
>
> Not yet.
>
> > Any discussion?
>
> Yes.
>
> > You have obeyed lots of lad members by not
> > asking them.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here.
>
> > My intention was based on following principles:
> >
> > 1. inform about plans, ideas
> > 2. discuss, try to form conclusions
> > 3. take action
>
> You've still got time to take action.
>
> > Seems like you'd like to go the other way around.
>
> Actually, I don't see project management working in such a linear
> fashion. There has to be 1, 2 and 3 happening in parallel.
>
> > The problem is that the name 'linux audio' actually *represents*
> > both the linux audio developer community and the linux audio user
> > community
>
> Not at all. Neither linux.com or linux.org have any special status in
> the Linux community - they're just domain names.
>
> > both meet at a common place which is the lad or lau
> > mailing list. It's where the discussion takes place
>
> But not the action?
>
> > Second problem is to find a way for new users and developers to
> > find everything they need related to linux audio *and* to make it a
> > meeting point, or even provide necessary resources to help new
> > audio projects grow.
>
> Personally, I saw little value in replicating the work of existing
> sites, or creating an all-encompassing portal.
Exactly, 'personally' is your problem.
>
>
> > The key is the name of the domain. It's
> > www.linuxaudio.org.
>
> Not any more, I'm afraid. If you wanted that domain name six months
> ago you should have registered it then.
It doesn't matter who registers the site.
>
> > The problem is lots of people won't find what
> > they actually wanted to find on such place.
>
> Until a couple of weeks ago there was nothing at all there, so I hope
> this site will be an improvement.
>
> > The consortium isn't the most necesary solution that will boost
> > linux audio
>
> I disagree. If you don't want to co-operate, you are free to start a
> better project.
>
> > it's not something people might find interesting
> > if they want to know about linux audio.
>
> The new user might be better off at other sites, it's true.
> linux-sound.org or djcj.org already exist.
>
> > It's
> > 1. providing information,
> > 2. providing a meeting place for devs and users,
> > 3. providing necesary resources, similar to sf.net
>
> That's your project, not mine. No-one is stopping you doing that.
>
> > the members should be *natural persons*, lad
> > members, and the organisation should be focused on the *community*,
> > not on companies.
>
> Again, you're talking about a different project. As for companies, who
> do you think employs members of the community to work on Linux audio?
> Linuxaudio.org gives libre software projects and companies equal
> status - that's pretty rare for an industry body.
>
> > The
> > organisation should exist to protect the interests of the LAD
> > community.
>
> As defined by yourself?
Are you kidding me? Who's the one taking action? Did i suggest to take a
look at xiph foundation or gnome foundation...?
> All I'm trying to do here is bring people
> together for mutual benefit, be they manufacturers, developers, or
> users.
>
> > That's why i *strongly* suggest - let's postpone it. Let's
> > discuss it. Let's make a decision at ZKM LAD meeting 2004 :)
>
> I can't do that now. You're demanding veto power again.
??
>
> > But a formal org. has no meaning if it isn't governed by law.
>
> Plenty of important Linux-related organisations aren't legal entities.
> If it proves necessary later, we can go down that path.
>
> > How
> > should it act and protect the interests of lad community?
>
> We'll find out after the launch.
>
> > time to start a organisation - a foundation consisting
> > of lad members.
>
> If you look at the current membership list you'll see they mostly are
> LAD members already.
>
> > The question is not whether it's
> > *yours* or *mine*.
>
> I'm afraid it is, because you're trying to impose your decisions on
> me.
>
> > The point is that it's an *acknowledged* place
>
> Yes, for discussion among developers - Linuxaudio.org is both
> different and complementary to the LAD list.
>
> > every little thign
> > happened to be discussed there, teh name of jack, the logo of lad,
> > the content of www.linuxaudiodev.org site, the LAD meetings etc and
> > i'm just mentioning thing which aren't related to coding
>
> That's hardly everything. Let me be explicit about the limitations of
> the current set-up.
>
> 1. Generally, very poor relations between hardware manufacturers and
> LAD community. You'd think that anyone writing a driver, or otherwise
> offering gratis support for the audio hardware of a particular
> manufacturer, would be welcomed with open arms. Not so - hackers
> can't even get full specs sometimes, let alone technical partnership
> or 'free as in beer' test kit.
>
> 2. Fragmentation - what organisation there is, is informal. Companies
> that want to have better relations with the LAD community don't know
> where to start. Result - those companies aren't taking Linux based
> audio products to the mainstream. Also see 1. above.
Do you think they will - without any users?
>
> 3. Developers are busy. They don't always have the time or skills to
> do advocacy, write articles for magazines or organise public events.
> The result is that advocacy just isn't being done as much as it could
> be. Linux has been around more than a decade, but it hasn't been
> until this year that we'll see the first appearance of libre software
> at audio industry trade shows.
> > If the linuxaudio.org project intends to have official status, then
> > you should *first* take LAD and ZKM conference seriously
>
> I do. They have a certain amount of natural authority.
>
> > as
> > something with official status.
>
> You're just wrong here. They have no official status which allows them
> to dictate how advocacy is done - neither do you.
So you do have official status then?
>
> > By not doing that, you're actually completely careless about the
> > entire LAD community.
>
> I think you're just complaining because you feel like the last to know
>
> - even though it doesn't even launch until tomorrow. In the
> pre-launch phase, I've discussed linuxaudio.org with every LAD member
> that I know.
>
> > So how come you're the director of a consortium before lots of
> > linux audio people know about it
>
> Lots of Linux audio people do know about it. The reason I made myself
> the director is that someone has to take responsibility, and put in
> the hours of unpaid work it requires to launch the project. If you
> read the Policy page you'll see that the director has to answer to
> the management board, which means I can easily be replaced after the
> launch.
>
> > a director of a consortium
> > which you wouldn't even think of if those people didn't develop
> > such apps?
>
> I took this unpaid job on because no-one else was doing it.
Did you ask anybody? Any voting?
> So far,
> I'm funding linuxaudio.org out of my own pocket. I'm quite aware of
> the fundamental contribution of libre software developers to the
> systems I use, which is why they have equal weight with companies on
> the linuxaudio.org management board.
Sorry but 'equal' just isn't the right word for it, 95% vs. 5% would be.
>
> > Woudln't it be better if those people we're acting in
> > such position?
>
> LAD members have had plenty of time to set up an organisation of this
> nature, and none of them have. What does that tell you?
What should it tell me?
>
> > Are you sure you're protecting the interests of the
> > community?
>
> Quite sure. Now please stop trolling and make a positive contribution.
Sorry. I didn't know that criticism = trolling for you.
>
> Cheers
>
> Daniel James
> Director
> http://linuxaudio.org
>
>
Marek
