15 Jun
2007
15 Jun
'07
9:19 p.m.
Jan Depner:
(and is fixing it as we speak). My advice to those
who are not
satisfied with Ardour is to 1) give money to the developers, 2) learn to
code and get to work on it, 3) learn to code and write your own DAW, or
4) go whine elsewhere.
No, I can not agree with this. We must be allowed to point out
what we think is wrong with ardour without doing 1, 2, 3 or 4. If someone
thinks something is wrong with any of my programs, I really want them
to tell me so, and I don't require any money or code contributions from
anyone. And I'm pretty sure Paul Davis, Thorstein Wilms, etc. thinks so
too.
There are more or less polite, and more or less constructive ways to
complain, so to suggest that you should never tell the authors of
Ardour that you are not satisfied with it, is just plain stupid.
16 Jun
16 Jun
12:32 a.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 01:19 +0200, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
Jan Depner:
I didn't say never complain. I said quit whining. I haven't seen a
single post in this thread that had a single constructive piece of
advice on how to correct the perceived problems with Ardour. It is OK
to tell them you are not satisfied with it but how about asking for
specific fixes to specific problems?
(and is fixing it as we speak). My advice to
those who are not
satisfied with Ardour is to 1) give money to the developers, 2) learn to
code and get to work on it, 3) learn to code and write your own DAW, or
4) go whine elsewhere.
No, I can not agree with this. We must be allowed to point out
what we think is wrong with ardour without doing 1, 2, 3 or 4. If someone
thinks something is wrong with any of my programs, I really want them
to tell me so, and I don't require any money or code contributions from
anyone. And I'm pretty sure Paul Davis, Thorstein Wilms, etc. thinks so
too.
There are more or less polite, and more or less constructive ways to
complain, so to suggest that you should never tell the authors of
Ardour that you are not satisfied with it, is just plain stupid.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chardonnay in one hand, chocolate in the other, body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO, what a ride'"
2:35 a.m.
New subject: Whining and whingeing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:19:19AM +0200, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
Jan Depner:
Indeed.
Also, why are people picking on Ardour? It is among the more complete, polished, and
full-featured linux audio programs out there. They've done a fantastic job on it, and
its ongoing development seems to be proceeding at a fast pace too.
There are so many linux audio programs to choose from. Sometimes the volume of choices is
bewildering, but those choices are very useful when some program irritates you so much
that you don't ever want to use it again-- just switch to a different one!
Switching requires no coding skills, no diplomacy, often takes very little time, and costs
no money. All you have to do is type "sudo apt-get install [someprogram]" (or
yum or whatever is used on RPM distros). This is Free Software; there are no monopolies,
no proprietary vendor lock-in, no "sunk costs" or other penalties for switching.
Everytime I've gotten frustrated with the overall design of some Free Software program
or another, I've been able to find an alternative that better suited me, via a quick
jaunt through "apt-cache search", a search on freshmeat.net, or asking a
question on IRC or on lists like these.
I use Ardour, and I like it just fine.
I've used Ardour in just about every bit of music I've made in the last 6 months.
Even when I don't use it for recording or playback, its mixer interface and automation
is so nice that lately I've basically been using it solely as a mixer.
- -ken
(and is fixing it as we speak). My advice to
those who are not
satisfied with Ardour is to 1) give money to the developers, 2) learn to
code and get to work on it, 3) learn to code and write your own DAW, or
4) go whine elsewhere.
No, I can not agree with this. We must be allowed to point out
what we think is wrong with ardour without doing 1, 2, 3 or 4. If someone
thinks something is wrong with any of my programs, I really want them
to tell me so, and I don't require any money or code contributions from
anyone. And I'm pretty sure Paul Davis, Thorstein Wilms, etc. thinks so
too.
There are more or less polite, and more or less constructive ways to
complain, so to suggest that you should never tell the authors of
Ardour that you are not satisfied with it, is just plain stupid.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGc2hke8HF+6xeOIcRAr7YAKCt/4FlCikQagHl2Wv1EsiC4fnQWgCg4RyX
YD+ww+0t3ti7d05Veg79G7Y=
=Mjnx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:12 a.m.
New subject: Whining and whingeing
Hi!
Well Ken, why so many now pick on ardour. I think it might be both
bewildering and completely understandable. I'm more affiliated with the
understanding end. And that DOES NOT mean, that I dislike ardour, how can I, I
can't use it at all? But the more users you have and the more famous the
project gets, the more people to get in such a discussion. Also the more will
be there to drop a lot of good words about it, if they think it's necessary at
all, because they're so sure, that it's good.
I also agree with Kjetil: It's ok that people complain, but well the rest of
the discussion I followed seemed a bit childish! With a lot of unfounded
fights and accusations! Isn't this all about software? It is! And software is
something rather rational if you get down to the core? I think so. There's
code at the very base, which is either working fne or it isn't, but it is
_rather- simple to pinpoint this. And above the code level there is design?
About that you can argue, but I think even that has specifications or definite
ideas, about which one can argue instead of being just unspecific.
Kindest regards
Julien
P.S.: Sorry for intruding, me no ardour-user, but I found it all too stupid,
unnecessarily angry and unproductive!
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
3:15 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Sat, 2007-16-06 at 01:19 +0200, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
Jan Depner:
There is a big difference between constructive criticism and
whining/trolling. The former is of course always appreciated.
-DR-
(and is fixing it as we speak). My advice to
those who are not
satisfied with Ardour is to 1) give money to the developers, 2) learn to
code and get to work on it, 3) learn to code and write your own DAW, or
4) go whine elsewhere.
No, I can not agree with this. We must be allowed to point out
what we think is wrong with ardour without doing 1, 2, 3 or 4. If someone
thinks something is wrong with any of my programs, I really want them
to tell me so, and I don't require any money or code contributions from
anyone. And I'm pretty sure Paul Davis, Thorstein Wilms, etc. thinks so
too.
6220
days inactive
6221
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dave Robillard -
Jan Depner -
Julien Claassen -
Ken Restivo -
Kjetil S. Matheussen