13 Jan
2004
13 Jan
'04
5:08 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:09, andrea.glorioso(a)agnula.org wrote:
Daniel James <daniel(a)linuxaudio.org> writes:
[snipping a lot of stuff]
I honestly can't understand what the fuss is all about. If someone
wants to contribute, well, just contribute.
If we failed to contact every possible linux audio developer around,
just drop a note that *you* are going to contact him and put the list
in Cc:.
done.
Is there
any chance you'd postpone it and announce the project and
the beta site on lad for further discussing before launching it?
No. As I've already explained, my view is that membership of a
particular mailing list does not confer veto rights over any project
that happens to have the words Linux and Audio in its name.
If you feel the rules are not the most equitable possible, suggest
(practical) modifications.
If you feel that a more "community-oriented" approach (whatever that
means) is due, I'm sure we can officially create a "community
relationship" position inside the Consortium.
?
"The consortium aims to co-ordinate joint projects between members,
collaborate on the promotion of Linux based systems for audio tasks, and
provide a single point of contact for both prospective Linux users and
industry partners."
IIUC it should serve and protect the community and its members. Isn't
LAD such single point of contact? Who are you trying to help?
If you feel that <FILL IN THE BLANKS>, well, you're welcome to give
your help.
Oh, and a small hint: there is people in here who have bben around
from *before* 1999, so - even assuming that "being around" and "doing
the right thing" have a cause-effect relationship - nobody is going to
be impressed by a somewhat "veteran" attitude.
All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the *only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.
I hope we can stop this childish attitude and actually get some work
done (this is usually the moment when people start to disappear).
So keeping such projects confidential until "ready", and not accepting a
community place although it's been here from 1997 or so isn't childish?
Marek
13 Jan
13 Jan
5:25 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:09:34 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the
*only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.
I dont think thats true - there are a large number of linux audio
developers* that aren't present on LAD.
the l-a-d mailing list may be seen as an authoritive representation of the
LAD community, but not linux audio in general.
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers - when was the last time you saw a posting from yamaha.com,
4front or Hartmann?
- Steve
6:16 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 22:22, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:09:34 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
that's why we should promote it. I see there's a clear tradition. It's
been here since when - 1997 or 1996? that's 7-8 years already.
I'm not saying that this is the only place even if there are other
places, but i don't know of any other places where people discuss linux
audio development in general. And even if there were more places, we
should try to get them together.
All i wanted to say is, i see LAD and LAU as the
*only* place for linux
audio community(not because i say so but because it *evolved* in such
place) and the community as the authority.
I dont think thats true - there are a large number of linux audio
developers* that aren't present on LAD.
the l-a-d mailing list may be seen as an authoritive representation of the
LAD community, but not linux audio in general.
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers - when was the last time you saw a posting from yamaha.com,
4front or Hartmann?
I have a cd burner from Yamaha, i tried to contact them because i wanted
them to provide specs for developing a firmware loader. I've contacted
them 6-7 times, and guess what, the answer was 'no' even though they
discontinued all cd-burners a year ago. The emails came with invalid
email addrs.
4Front - are those the ones who did proprietary soundcard drivers for
linux? Wasn't that one of the reasons alsa was created?
Is Hartmann actually informing its customers that they're using a linux
kernel? Are they informing whether or not it's a vanilla kernel or a
patched kernel? Are they actually providing source code?
http://www.music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2003-June/004100.ht…
Take another example - Kiss. I guess everybody here is reading slashdot.
For those who're not, see http://www.mplayerhq.hu.
Or take montavista - (Benno, correct me if i'm wrong) they use Benno's
latency test tool without actually mentioning his efforts.
Those efforts we're discussed *here* back in 2000 if i remember
correctly.
I'm sorry to say that, but there's only *one* company that supports
linux - Lionstracs.
And there are those companies which come close, by providing specs and
even hw - companies such as RME.
Marek
17 Jan
17 Jan
10:14 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html
see bottom of this mail :)
Marek
12:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:15:24 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I dont think one guy is really representative of the industry, though it
is good to see commercial guys here.
- Steve
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html
7:51 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 17:14, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:15:24 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
I dont think one guy is really representative of the industry, though it
is good to see commercial guys here.
http://eca.cx/lad/2003/09/0190.html
or there's Fred Gleason - Salem Radio Labs.
The question is - who's the representative of the industry and whether
providing a virtual consortium will change the situation.
I propose the following - on sounds expo we should promote LAD and oss,
linux audio projects such as:
(in no particular order)
*Ardour
*ALSA
*Jack
*JAMin
*LADSPA+swh-plugins
*LinuxSampler
*Lilypond
etc
Linux audio distros such as AGNULA, dyne:bolic etc
It should become another LAD event where the linux audio developers
present their work(such as ZKM LAD conference, LinuxTag LAD booth).
comments?
Marek
* I can think of several academics who use and develop linux audio
software daily and who never read or post to LAD, and all the commercial
developers
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html 
13 Jan
13 Jan
10:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 18:09, Marek Peteraj and Daniel James
<daniel(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
WHOA! Down boys, down... :)
First, for the innocent bystanders to this thread, the discussion is about the
following:
http://www.linuxaudio.org/en
It looks to be an interesting approach. As I understand it, consortia in the
past have had two primary reasons for being:
1) LICENSING -- It's fairly common for organizations in a consortium to
cross-license the rights to various technologies to each other. While, as
Open Source / Libre developers, *code* licensing is is basically a done deal,
the same can not be said for issues of *patent* licensing. While the
LinuxAudio.org policy does not go so far as to actually cross-license patents
between members, I think it does seek to provide some sort of framework in
which to mediate disputes over such matters independently of lawyers and the
legal system, particularly in the area of reverse engineering. See Policy
Point #6. As such, I think that is a potentially valuable benefit of
membership.
2) ANTI-TRUST -- Such "open to all" consortia/trade groups have also
traditionally been employed as a platform for discussion and implementation
of industry-wide initiatives that could otherwise be enjoined by anti-trust
law. I believe that this aspect was throughly discussed here a few months
back in the thread concerning the MMA.
That said, I do sense a little bit of undue haste in the launch of this
organization. I only became aware of it myself about a week ago, at which
time active debate concerning some of the core Policy Points was still going
on, debate that resulted in significant change to the wording of at least one
of those points. I think that for an initiative of this sort to succeed,
community consensus -- from both commercial companies *and* part time
developers -- is key. LAD would indeed seem to be one of the natural fora in
which to seek this consensus.
Cheers!
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten |
| your aim. |
| -- George Santayana |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I hope we can
stop this childish attitude and actually get some work
done (this is usually the moment when people start to disappear).
So keeping such projects confidential until "ready", and not accepting a
community place although it's been here from 1997 or so isn't childish?
7649
days inactive
7653
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Fred Gleason -
Marek Peteraj -
Steve Harris