27 May
2012
27 May
'12
1:16 p.m.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 08:48:07PM -0400, David Robillard wrote:
The full report is over 100 pages, and with what you've seen of
it you are not in any position to judge its merits or faults.
And it was certainly not all 'negative', on the contrary.
Nothing cloak
and dagger about it. If someone is prepared to pay me for
writing a report on something I do have strong opinions about (and very
probably because of that), should I refuse that ? It's a consultancy
job just like any other. And at least one other well-known developer
got the same.
No, you clearly wouldn't refuse it, but you could at least attempt to do
a competent job. Since you didn't, I in turn clearly am not going to
pull any punches: You got your money, so hey, you win. Free Software
didn't, however,
and that's the part that saddens me.
First, I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Second, you wrote:
I mud-sling only about *behaviour* which is actively
harmful to the
adoption of open audio technology.
So it's my *behaviour* that bothers you. So be it. I'm not going
to change my opinions in function of the advancement of Free
Software or whatever 'higher cause' or marketing campaign, ever.
I've done my part of advocacy for Linux Audio, and I'm still doing
that, by example and pointing out both its great features *and* its
shortcomings, not by keeping my mouth shut about the latter. If some
potential user asks me what is the state of audio plugins in Linux
I'll tell him/her that there are some great ones, but also that some
things are missing, and that 50% of what is available is pure crap.
Since I'm usually known or introduced to sich persons as 'the Linux
Audio nerd', that may come as a surprise to them, But they generally
appreciate the honesty.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)