22 Apr
2006
22 Apr
'06
8:31 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 23:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
It is good (tm) to define broad standards that
encompass a variety of
situations. But usually broad means also thin, which results in it
being less helpful for each specific situation it pretends to be
applied to.
And no matter how broad you try to make it, I bet someone comes up
with a feature that is absolutely essential for his/her purposes that
the standard should cover but fails to.
How broad do we want it? Wouldn't it be a good idea to survey what
people are doing with LADSPA and what are they missing in it?
Personally, I don't need any more modular synths, thanks.
I'm going to assume this is a shot at me for rather obvious reasons.
Since you must know, my thoughts are mostly with Ardour, which will soon
be OSC controlled. You may have noticed that Ardour isn't a modular
synth. Fancy that.
I miss the most in LADSPA:
- Sensible GUIs.
*sigh* someone just had to do it, didn't they?
We don't need another inifinitely long GUI toolkit pissing match thread
that is guaranteed to lead absolutely nowhere, thanks.
LAD_S_PA2 is not going to have GUIs. http://dssi.sf.net. Enjoy.
Now can we please have a productive discussion about fixing very real
problems with LADSPA without /that/ *&%$% topic ruining everything, yet
again, thanks?
-DR-