21 Nov
2009
21 Nov
'09
7:50 a.m.
Am 20.11.2009 um 22:56 schrieb Frank Kober <goemusic(a)yahoo.fr>fr>:
Hi Nedko,
The following tiny comments are to give some feedback even if most
of the details you mention are beyond my scope as a user and I would
be too scared to analyse that thoroughly. Take the already-said
thingies as +1s.
Session managment is what still keeps us from world domination. It is
the only spot where I as a user see Linux audio suck. There might be
other quirks, but hey, thats life and I don't care very much about them.
If it would get solved in a way that the majority of client developers
could follow, that would be heaven on earth, folks.
Sorry for religiously trolling,
- Burkhard
P.S.: Thanks for bringing it up, Nedko.
After recent discussion on IRC I'm
loosing faith in whether it is worth
to contribute to linux audio session handling/management.
For me, session
management is actually THE issue that a linux audio
setup for me is still lacking, so PLEASE don't ;). I think it's the reason why people, sometimes
including myself, are
sticking to plugin solutions be it any of the native open standards
or VST. But plugins are not an option for everything, and they press
your setup an some predefined shape which I don't like that much.
BTW is it true that none of the native standards can pass clock
information to a plugin?
It's the reason of a couple of frustrations where in plain composing
environment you realize that you have to spend the next 10 minutes
on rebuilding your 'studio' loading various parameters, verify
connections, etc...if an app decided to tear down jack...well this
rarely happens with jack2 I have to say.
Two reasons
were given why it does not get testing from users. One is
that what I
did so far is not mature, has annoying bugs and I'm not
wanting to fix
them. The other one is that ladish is not giving more than
users already
have with qjackctl.
It's the latter why I have to admit that I didn't test LADI yet. I
pretty well get along with qjackctl, but restoring the apps' states
is what makes the setup(s) long. It needs really good concentration
on things certain one-stop-shop host applications just take care of
on their own. If you use many independent apps, don't forget to save
each synth's or FX's parameters before you quit, know where you put
all the files, in which hierarchy, etc....I think such a modular
linux studio can only survive on the long term with a concept like
LADI or LASH. And I got to know the latter and the fact that many of
my apps didn't have support for it.
Also it was mentioned that D-Bus is not
what users
find acceptable for controlling jack server.
I cannot comment on that, but my impression is, the problems arise
because this can only work in an environment in which all apps
follow that behaviour and for this they would have to adapt their
standards, is that what it is?
Given the almost missing feedback about LADI
development
from community
members that could benefit from it, I'm not sure whether I
should
continue to contribute. Maybe I should give up on trying to
make linux
audio usable for my needs. I could also stop using
computers and make
music only by using my guitar.
Even if I don't know your guitar playing I don't think we should
accept this :)
[resume on things that suck]
I share many
of the points that are in there, but how can a user
take position in that complex goods and bads environment? So we all
do what works best for what we're currently up to...
Finally I do not know how LADI can talk to all of the apps around
and tell them to load their patches and restore their state, but I
really think it's worth TO GO ON WITH THAT.
Frank.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user