4 Oct
2003
4 Oct
'03
4:24 p.m.
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:03:26PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
Agreed here. If you want to do B, you should do it knowing that it will run
in your app, and if you are VERY LUCKY, a few other linux apps. Don't think
you can change the industry by yourself. I'd have kept up on XAP if I
thought GMPI was useless.
a) Hope that
MMA will reconsider the design phase.
b) Develop my own API (hopefully with other free software developers).
c) Don't care, and do other things in my free time.
i hope its (c). (a) is important because we've already seen how slow
the requirements process is when its open to anyone on a mailing
list. (b) is just going to make things more confusing for
everyone. please wait for GMPI to fail first. >- I'm having difficulties to follow the item
on the agenda as some of my
>ideas for an ideal (i.e. to be used in many years to come) API are not
>completely in accordance with some concept of the agenda.
I've offered to answer any questions/concerns you have about already
discussed items. We're still in the requirements phase, so PLEASE - tell us
your requirements (and justify them). I will spend my own personal time
rehashing GMPI discussions to bring you up to speed. If you have a legit
requirement that we have screwed up, I'll bring it up to the GMPI group.
together by a bunch of suits - it was the result of
discussions by a
few dozen of the most experienced audio programmers around. if you
have something to contribute, join the GMPI list rather than talking
about it on LAD.
Also an option. :)
Like I said, if you have issues with existing decisions - ask me about them,
and I'll dredge out the best explanations I can.
Tim
--
Notice that as computers are becoming easier and easier to use,
suddenly there's a big market for "Dummies" books. Cause and effect,
or merely an ironic juxtaposition of unrelated facts?