2 Jul
2011
2 Jul
'11
10:41 p.m.
On 07/02/2011 10:34 PM, James Stone wrote:
The best thing is to focus on the part
you are able to control best.
That means in this case, making LV2 (on Linux) as good as possible first.
Regards,
\r
Native VST
support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
I wonder if commercial plugin manufacturers think LV2 (if they know of
it) is too much of a risk from submarine patents and the like: if they
license VST, they can stand behind Steinberg in the case of any legal
action, whereas if they implement their plugins in LV2, they have to
stand on their own??
Not sure how much basis in fact this line of thinking has, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it is behind some companies seeming
reluctance to embrace LV2.. On the other hand it could just be
laziness and inertia - I imagine if the plugin is already written for
VST in windows, it is considerably less work to port the VST to linux
as native VST rather than recode it for LV2.