31 Jan
2003
31 Jan
'03
12:13 p.m.
On Friday 31 January 2003 09.25, k 1 wrote:
[...]
Should I feel guilt for not being interested in the
closed source
providers if they are not interested in working with us?
Not really, but there's a third party involved here as well; one that
we to some extent, hope to share with the closed source guys; the
users.
One though that keeps returning is "What difference does it make if we
use one API on Linux, and the closed source guys use another API on
some other platform?"
Of course, if we were all using the same API, porting would be easier,
and there would be a slightly bigger chance of users actually running
the same plugins in both environments. However, since even with the
same API, porting to Linux requires a recompile, I have a feeling
that it takes much more than a common API to bring proprietary/high
end plugins to Linux. They're worried about copy protection issues
and that sort of stuff, so the catch 22 situation caused by the
abscense of a "big" user base on Linux is not the *only* issue.
That said, nothing is made *worse* by everyone using the same plugin
API, provided it's truly Free/Open, and fits the bill from a
technical POV. There's no point in us bending over backwards to get
in on it for no return - but unless Free/Open Source audio software
is a dead end, a common API *is* a Good Thing.
Now, when, what and how is another story...
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---