18 Aug
2013
18 Aug
'13
10:03 p.m.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 07:29:25PM -0700, J. Liles
wrote:
Not true. The bug report would be useful if it was submitted to the
distribution and the packager decided to just remove the offending plugins
from the distro.
This is why diversity is good. People are free to write as many plugins as
they want of whatever level of quality and as long as we as a community
have the ability to measure and evaluate such things and share our results,
then the bad ones can be weeded out. The problem is, to my knowledge no
LADSPA or LV2 plugin has ever been weeded out! We're doing fine at
producing new ones.
I completely agree. But I really think this is a
more general problem.
Most
plugins are crap. That's a fact. LADSPA, LV2,
VST, AU, whatever. Most of
them are ununique, incomplete, poorly thought out, devoid of QA, etc. I
think it would be generous to say that 10% of plugins are useful. But
since
when are we talking about plugins?
The topic of the thread was about reporting bugs. What should a
user do when he/she encounters things like described above ?
* To report a bug would be completely useless in such a case. *
...
Yes, sorry, I was referring only to processing plugins, not to synths
(which, depending on their level of complexity, are indeed often better
suited to being applications rather than mere plugins).
There's a whole different problem of
branding/marketing and the
misconception that there are even enough unique DSP tasks that anyone
would
require 100s of plugins. The truth is, anyone
only needs a handful of
basic
plugins: the rest is permutations.
For normal audio processing (EQ, dynamics, effects,...) that is
true. If you count 'instrument' plugins as well things could look
different. But why should those be plugins in the first place.