On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@linuxuse.de> wrote:

Am 28.01.2011 14:09, schrieb allcoms:

I'm surprised Alex included RG in that list as to be honest, powerful and
fully-featured program as it is, I think RG is really let down by its clunky
(mainly too big) GUI and I was hoping for a complete overhaul when it got
ported to QT4 but sadly that didn't happen. Attractive GUIs are definitely
great but are always secondary to functionality and stability, Besides, most
people on this list are quite happy to work with apps that have NO gui ie
ecasound or minimal, archaic GUIs ala PD.

Really? Most people on this list?

Well, while I am using CLI-apps for administration and to compile code frequently, for music-making I only use sox and the like to convert formats.

Wave-editing and composing of sequences are best done in a graphical program. Manipulating settings of FX or synths may be done best using controller-hardware but next to that a graphical interface is best.

And it is not very surprising, that software for a complex task like recording and editing a song with a band, comes with a complex UI.

I see your point and 'most people' was prob they wrong way to phrase it as I personally have never used ecasound and I totally agree about the many advantages of a GUI for audio production. I think the point I was trying to make is that I'd expect Linux users on the whole to be less concerned about a pretty GUI than Windows and especially OSX users. Personally, If I have a choice between a super-shiny, CPU hogging GUI or a much more plain yet just as functional and much less CPU intensive GUI I'd go for the latter every time. Nice looks don't mean the program is any easier to use although bad colour schemes, un-intuitive layouts and GUIs that don't fit on your screen are obviously a real problem. Nice GUIs are cool and are desireable but pale into significance when compared to usability, stability, performance, features and in the case of synths sound quality.