On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 02:35, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So, the
world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
Jack,
ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.
I promised myself not to get involved but now I just have to, although
only commenting this one specific statement.
JACK ---> Paul Davis. Discussions happened on LAD but mostly
concentrating on the n+1 different proposals and
implementations on doing an audio server, and of course,
making more proposals. Paul just went ahead and did it.
That's what i said in my prevoius email. First discuss then take action.
Of course nobody is bound to first discuss then take action if it
concerns a oss sw project. But as i see it, a project such as jack or
ladspa is of higher importance, since it's also a standard, a technology
which affects a higher number of other specific audio apps. That's why i
think it was brought onto LAD.
LAD plays an important role in this regard. It's a pool of linuxaudio
developers leading their own projects or contributing. If i want to
propose a standard or an idea, i know that i can do it here since it's a
known access point for all la developers. It gets discussed so that i
can see if it fits the needs of other developers and what the other
needs of those developers are. This discussion is forming/shaping the
standard. Then it might or might not get adopted depending on its
importance.
The 'known access point for all la developers' is a part of linuxaudio
advocacy.
To summarize:
1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers
2. LAU should be a known access point for many linux audio users
3. a linux audio developer foundation should be an access point for the
music industry
OTOH
linuxaudio.org is no oss sw project and affects whole community.
LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.
Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul.
You just can't say that these projects we done without any discussion.
They were *born* on LAD. It doesn't matter if it's a one man action or
700 man action. If it's a one man action then the people responsible for
that action will get the respect they deserve. Nobody is going to
disagree that Paul is the father of Jack. :)
But i hope that nobody is going to disagree that LAD is the mother of
all standards that affect linux audio projects.
To Quote the JACK homepage:
"Jack was inspired by and partially designed during discussions on the
Linux Audio Developers mailing list. Particularly significant
contributions to those discussions came from (in alphabetical order):
* Paul Davis
* Richard Günther
* David Olofson
* Benno Sennoner
* Kai Vehmanen
Paul Davis was the principal author of the Jack API and of its sample
implementation. Very significant contributions have been made by:
* Kai Vehmanen
* Jack O'Quin
* Bob Ham
* Steve Harris
* Stephane Letz
Many other members of LAD contributed ideas and code to Jack."
LAD web site
-> Jörn Nettingsmeier. Again, this is another mostly
one man show, that is run so well that others
have silently approved it as the official frontend
to LAD.
... so history shows (and personal memories of many endless discussions
prove it), that Chris is very much right - LAD is not one unified
community.
I say it already is, and we should all encourage such process.
IMHO the magic of LAD is that it has survived the
overblown egos of us
developers for so long, and even witnessed few cases of random
collaboration. :) And perhaps most importantly, LAD has been a fun place
to be - let's try to keep it that way.
It wasn't really a fun place to be during jack related discussions :)
Marek