29 Apr
2008
29 Apr
'08
11:52 a.m.
M-.-n wrote:
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.
Hi Marc,
I understand your point, but I'll take power over ease any day.
Nevertheless, I agree with you re: the new user. If new users are going
to get into this stuff they need a lot of hand-holding, and this is true
regardless of platform. It is a matter of design.
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'...
This argument assumes that "more is better". In my
personal world,
"better is better".
Again, I still agree with your basic contention. Software should never
ignore the user's potential for confusion, especially when the software
in question is complex by nature. Ah, but how to balance access and
power, that is the question. Classic Csound resolves the issue by
tossing it out the window, i.e. you are required to learn its language
or you will be limited by the design limitations of whatever front-end
you prefer (though some are certainly better than others). I don't
disagree with that tack, but it's difficult to attract new users without
giving them polished and shiny GUIs. That's not a complaint, it's just
"where we at" in the general sound & music software world.
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.
You're not using one of the optimized distros ? If not, you've
set
yourself up for (IMHO) needless mucking about with kernel compilation
and other unnecessary activity. I've been at this Linux audio game for
long enough, and I don't care if I never compile another kernel.
Happily, the maintainers of 64 Studio, JAD, Planet CCRMA, MusiX, and
everyone else listed at http://linux-sound.org/distro.html have made
that involvement a dim memory for me.
In other words, if you want a better out-of-the-box Linux audio
experience then you should open a more appropriate box.
Btw, please don't take this commentary as a personal jab. I truly
believe that more problems come from new (and not so new) users naively
believing that *any* Linux distro is good enough for pro-quality audio
performance, if they just toss in the right kernel, and set those
priorities, and find the necessary drivers and firmware, and tweak those
JACK and ALSA settings... Gahh, what a pile of work, and it usually
results in the conclusion that Linux just isn't up to the task. The
conclusion is wrong because the starting premise (i.e. the distro) was
wrong.
Setup for my last two installs (JAD and 64 Studio) was anything but a
bitch. Yes, I still had to tweak a few things, because I have a rather
complicated setup here, but I have an advantage in knowing exactly what
I'm doing (or who to ask ;).
Of course, if you *are* using an optimized distro then you're having
problems that need to be communicated to the maintainers.
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 :)
Not at all. Your points are
generally valid, regardless of what distro
you've used. Typical software shouldn't present hurdles for the new
user, though I will add that more specialized software may require more
specialized knowledge before its capabilities can be more fully appreciated.
Thanks for sharing your POV, Marc. Please continue to do so. :)
Best,
dp