5 Aug
2005
5 Aug
'05
7:17 p.m.
On Friday 05 August 2005 22:46, Paul Davis wrote:
there are (at least) two companies that have tried to
make a business
from running VST's on linux, in both cases spendings hundreds of
thousands of dollars on development costs. why do you find it amusing
that there was no instant-ready-to-work-as-soon-as-apt/yum-was-done
equivalent of their hard work?
to support your point, paul (which i find amusing), i wonder why someone would
insist on using VST binaries. most of them are unstable and each one has its
own interpretation of what the standard looks like. the result is a lot of
hacked win32 hosts that most of the time only run 80% of all available
plugins.
i'd rather want to use plugins where i can make the developer fix a bug when
it comes up - and where the developer is actually willing to do so. because
we both want to hurt commercial software developers. that makes us
brothers :P
--
-- leonard "paniq" ritter
-- http://www.paniq.org
-- http://www.mjoo.org