31 Jan
2003
31 Jan
'03
4:32 a.m.
Given the time frames we're talking about here, and
that XAP is almost
in alpha (if that term applies to APIs), I don't really think there's
more than one sensible choice here. Most of the thinking is already
done, and we *need* that API, yesterday.
There's no point in stopping development but it would be good if someone from the MMA
could figure out what their opinion is on Open Source. It seems like a huge division at
the moment between what they are wanting to do and what is actually happening around
here.
Maybe we have to resign ourselves to yet another completely Open source solution that has
no backing from the major businesses in our field. Ok, we keep slogging on and they keep
(almost) ignoring us.
Makes me feel even more uninterested in what they have to offer open source.
Should I feel guilt for not being interested in the closed source providers if they are
not interested in working with us?
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No! We want
normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
_____________________________________________________________
Get your spam-free, Linux email now --> http://www.LinuxWaves.com
Join Linux discussions --> http://Community.LinuxWaves.com
_____________________________________________________________
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you(a)yourchoice.com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP
& more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
31 Jan
31 Jan
10:15 a.m.
There's no point in stopping development but it
would be good if someone from
the MMA could figure out what their opinion is on Open Source. It seems like a
huge division at the moment between what they are wanting to do and what is a
ctually happening around here.
there is no need to do this, because relatively speaking, nothing is
happening around here. the discussions on XAP cover *so little* of
what was discussed in 1 hour in anaheim that its almost completely
irrelevant at this point.
Makes me feel even more uninterested in what they have
to offer open source.
the MMA, just like AES, have not and do not offer software. they have
provided and managed standards. they have freely allowed those
standards to be implemented by anyone. why do you think we have so
many MIDI implemenations floating around? how do you think i was able
to use AES31 (Broadcast WAVE format) to Ardour?
Should I feel guilt for not being interested in the
closed source providers if
they are not interested in working with us?
you should only feel guilty for impatience and a lack of communication
with the relevant parties. but i wouldn't waste time on even that.
and finally, the MMA has almost no role in this right now. they are
willing to act as stewards of the process, and of any resulting
standard. but this initiative was started by ron kuper, and if it goes
anyway, it will not be because of the MMA, but because of other
developers from cakewalk, steinberg, motu, propellerheads, fxpansion,
ohm force, universal audio, waves, apple/emagic, etc. etc. that list
can include people here, if we want it to.
--p
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 ---
7768
days inactive
7768
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
David Olofson -
k 1 -
Paul Davis