29 Apr
2008
29 Apr
'08
10:27 a.m.
Dave Phillips a écrit :
Respectfully, I disagree. The client/server
architecture is one I wish
more synths would adopt. Thanks to this design, the engine may be
controlled by MIDI or OSC, can be run with or without a (possibly
custom) GUI, and allows the engine to be used for purposes other than
those originally intended. The client/server distinction confers great
flexibility, though it may not be immediately apparent to the new user.
Hey Dave,
I understand your point. I was not saying the client/server 'awareness'
had to be ditched. Even as a monolotic exe, OSC, midi, and any other
protocol could still exist.
My point was that when I decide to do music I don't have hours to kill
and reading man pages/collecting contradictory information on the web is
the last thing I feel like doing... In my eye, "ease of use" should
never be sacrificed against flexibility. In malte's case it could be
just a shell script that fires both exes.
In my view, It's up to the developpers to sort out the issues of
'getting started' and make his/her work usable... and it's all to his
benefits, otherwise his work is going to be restricted to a few
die-hards and all the time and love spend coding stuff is going to be
'wasted'...
Linux is a great platform but it has miles to cover before it can
'compete' with the mainstream players in term of audio. And I'm not
talking about capacities, inventivity or available software but only due
to the fact setup is a bitch: I consider myself not being a retard and I
haven't been able to get a rt kernel working properly on any of my machines.
Usability out of the box is the biggest challenge. Everyone working on
any piece of the puzzle should focus on it.
I guess I'm going to get fragged for saying that :)
++
Marc.