Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb

Actually yes, I am suggesting you don't use Jack or Sockets if you want your app to be well written and portable. Now, what has this really got to do with hardware? You design an app, it interfaces to some libraries - you talk about hardware abstraction but all the library does is give you access to some features you want. Applications which rely on X to 'distribute' themselves are now totally dependent on the underlying library for that feature because they have no other inherent method of doing it. They are totally dependent. This is not abstracting any function, you have just moved your dependency from specific hardware to specific software because you now need _that_ set of libraries to work. You talk about badly written applications but with respect to distribution models, if your app was not architected to support a feature then it was 'badly written' if you consider that feature to be useful. Back to bristol - the engine implements its DSP code because I considered that to be a base requirement of the product, but it also abstracts itself to support a distributed mode because I also consider that to be a base requirement. I did not rely on X11 to provide this feature for me just as I did not rely on any DSP ASIC or specific soundcard to provide my audio interface. You are getting off the point here which was the dependency on X11 but I am really honoured that you want to know so much about my software, I truly never realised you were such a fan. I only mentioned it because it highlights that fact that you don't need X to distribute an app but Fons, I would be happy to start another thread if you are that interested in blowing smoke where it isn't supposed to go and suffice to say bristol does not rely on any archaic windowing systems. No, Fons, you are mixing things up. Most systems do not even run X servers. Most systems don't even run *nix. Only a very tiny minority are still lumbered with this aged piece of code called X. In my previous post I said that a majority of these systems were not using X in a distributed fashion because it is either disabled, not available (firewalled) or plain uninteresting and I stand by that statement - a few users have replied that they use this feature and that speaks for itself, either a few users of a low volume interest list use the feature or a whole load of people use the list and don't use the feature. Now I like X11 but again I am not going to be a fanboy since that smells a lot like every Apple advocate who is blind to the limitations of their beloved products. So here I agree with Paul - something like wayland is what we will all be on in a few years. If you are relying on features of X for anything that you consider to be useful in your apps then you are likely to need some very fundamental changes to what is likely to be the next way of interfacing with your hardware. Now you did ask about models to distribute processing and asked me to quote them: go google it, there are already plenty of very good models out there and they are being used. If you application is 'badly written' as you put it, relying on a given interface for a potentially critical feature then it is going to have problems migrating. It has nothing to do with libraries that use X window Id in their specification, nor apps that work or not with X over SSH. As you well know, if you did not consider a given requirement before the fact then you are going to have problems implementing it after the ract, and offloading a feature onto the X11 libraries because as a fan boy you like the way it abstracts hardware means you are likely to be in for a world of hurt later. At least you do have a few years to put it straight but you do need to drop the benefits of the -X switch. Regards, nick. "we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear”. Jim Wong, president of IT products, Acer