now online: video recording of Louigi Verona at Open Source Audio Meeting Cologne in November 2015
17 Dec
2015
17 Dec
'15
11:31 p.m.
Hey everyone!
Last week Nils posted to the list, but apparently it has been filtered out,
although I do see it in list archives.
We decided to re-post it to the mailing list for those of you (or perhaps
even all of you) who missed it.
Dear Linux Audio User list,
here is a video recording, split in three parts, of Louigi Verona giving
an invited talk at the Open Source Audio Meeting Cologne in November
2015 (which is organized by me, that's why I'm posting this).
On Electronic Music (Part 1/3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKw6AupjUMM
Unsorted Demonstrations (Part 2/3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63EI-oxsSgQ
On Hobbyist Software (Part 3/3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlaBuFfkQdM
I hope you enjoy this and I would be happy to see some thumbs ups and
nice comments here or in the youtube section.
Best wishes,
Nils
18 Dec
18 Dec
9:27 p.m.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Louigi Verona wrote:
Last week Nils posted to the list, but apparently it
has been filtered out,
although I do see it in list archives.
We decided to re-post it to the mailing list for those of you (or perhaps even
all of you) who missed it.
Got it, but at the time some parts were missing. They all seem to be there
now.
Interesting points in the last one about linux sw and developers. Having
just started doing some development work it is even more applicable to me.
Yes, most things are built for the builder first. Personally, I have tried
to make things only I will use as the things that require CL options. So
far I have had no requests for features on my own SW. However, having
helped bugfix in Ardour a bit, I have seen a lot of feature requests that
just don't make sense. Not that they are wrong or bad feature requests,
but that the user has not explained what it is really that they are
looking for. Most of the time this is because some other DAW has this
feature and they just use the name in that DAW or that it is very obvious
with what is in front of them right now. Reading a feature request that is
about MIDI while I am working with Audio, for example, is going to confuse
me onless the user actually says "when editing midi".
So I am thinking that badly executed feature requests may also be partly
the user's fault. As a user, someone asking for a feature should be
willing to stick around and explain fully what they want and help test the
results. I will note that I am not any better at making feature requests
than anyone else. I generally have to explain more than one time what I am
actually wanting. (bug reports have similar issues)
So in the same way a bug report should include a recipe to make the bug
happen, what actually happens, what is expected. A feature request should
do the same.
There are some developers who are just grumpy by nature... or because of
culture/language just seem that way.
Anyway, it was a very good talk (all three parts). Thank you for posting.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
10:31 p.m.
Hey Len!
Thanks for the feedback!
This is good point about the users and since this was the first time I
spoke on the topic, I still need to thing some things over and everyone's
feedback and criticisms are very welcome.
What you say about the user is also true. Perhaps it is right to say that
users and developers should work together. But the reason why developer, in
my view, carries more weight in this matter, is because he is the one
investing his time and skill. Therefore, it seems rational for him to make
sure he understands the feature and why it is needed (if at all).
Another weak point in my talk are roadmaps. Many software actually do have
roadmaps. In my view, however, they have a tendency to be random and not
very well aligned with product vision. But I did not go into such
Additionally, in the future I will refrain from giving concrete examples as
I do not want to offend any developers - especially since I do not think
that my talk is really criticism, but rather analysis of the situation.
Whether it is good or bad is up to each one of us.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Louigi Verona wrote:
Last week Nils posted to the list, but apparently it has been filtered out,
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
although I do see it in list archives.
We decided to re-post it to the mailing list for those of you (or perhaps
even
all of you) who missed it.
Got it, but at the time some parts were missing. They all seem to be there
now.
Interesting points in the last one about linux sw and developers. Having
just started doing some development work it is even more applicable to me.
Yes, most things are built for the builder first. Personally, I have tried
to make things only I will use as the things that require CL options. So
far I have had no requests for features on my own SW. However, having
helped bugfix in Ardour a bit, I have seen a lot of feature requests that
just don't make sense. Not that they are wrong or bad feature requests, but
that the user has not explained what it is really that they are looking
for. Most of the time this is because some other DAW has this feature and
they just use the name in that DAW or that it is very obvious with what is
in front of them right now. Reading a feature request that is about MIDI
while I am working with Audio, for example, is going to confuse me onless
the user actually says "when editing midi".
So I am thinking that badly executed feature requests may also be partly
the user's fault. As a user, someone asking for a feature should be willing
to stick around and explain fully what they want and help test the results.
I will note that I am not any better at making feature requests than anyone
else. I generally have to explain more than one time what I am actually
wanting. (bug reports have similar issues)
So in the same way a bug report should include a recipe to make the bug
happen, what actually happens, what is expected. A feature request should
do the same.
There are some developers who are just grumpy by nature... or because of
culture/language just seem that way.
Anyway, it was a very good talk (all three parts). Thank you for posting.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
22 Dec
22 Dec
1:16 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
What you say about the user is also true. Perhaps it is right to say that
users and developers should work together. But the reason why developer, in
my view, carries more weight in this matter, is because he is the one
investing his time and skill. Therefore, it seems rational for him to make
sure he understands the feature and why it is needed (if at all).
I enjoyed your talk(s). But I wanted to note that I've had (recent)
experience working with proprietary/commercial audio software development
that somewhat paradoxically undermines your description of the role of the
developer. Although it may seem strange, some companies choose or are
forced to hire developers who, despite having excellent development skills,
have close to zero knowledge about the domain they are working in. All the
understanding of the workflow and desired goals is left to a "product
manager" who defines the required changes/additions, and then the
developers are expected to implement them without (necessarily)
understanding their purpose.
Open source tends not to work this way, and we generally expect developers
to function as de facto product managers (or at least feature managers).
5:23 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:31:18PM +0100, Louigi Verona wrote:
This is good point about the users and since this was
the first time I
spoke on the topic, I still need to thing some things over and everyone's
feedback and criticisms are very welcome.
So here's some.
You quoted me twice in the last video.
When you quote someone it is basic courtesy to identify the
author. If you feel you can't do that even for something that
was said in public in the first place, that usually means you
are misrepresenting the author in some way, and know it.
Also when you quote anyone, provide the context. And do it
correctly. When I wrote
If a developer holds some views that go against those
of the
average user he will have some very good reasons for that. There
is *no reason at all* to assume that the average user's ideas
are 'the right ones'.
first that was part of a much wider discussion, and second, the
phrase 'the right ones' was in single quotes. You didn't mention
either.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
6:55 p.m.
Thanks for your feedback, Fons.
I actually approached it differently. To me the important thing was not to
"quote Fons", but to quote something that I observed as a common sentiment.
Next time I will rephrase it, I have no intention to quote you specifically.
However, I would be grateful if you would explain in which way my
understanding of your phrase was incorrect.
You mention that the first part (I assume the first sentence in the
paragraph) is part of the wider discussion. I have read that discussion and
actually have participated in it. Can you explain to me what the wider
discussion was and in what way it changes the meaning of your sentence?
You then mention that 'the right ones' is in single quotes. Can you expand
on what those quotes mean?
Otherwise it would be difficult for me to understand how to change my take
on your words (although, again, I did not aim to quote you specifically,
which is why I did not mention the author of the words, to me they are just
an example of something that I see as a common approach).
L.V.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:31:18PM +0100, Louigi
Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
This is good point about the users and since this
was the first time I
spoke on the topic, I still need to thing some things over and everyone's
feedback and criticisms are very welcome.
So here's some.
You quoted me twice in the last video.
When you quote someone it is basic courtesy to identify the
author. If you feel you can't do that even for something that
was said in public in the first place, that usually means you
are misrepresenting the author in some way, and know it.
Also when you quote anyone, provide the context. And do it
correctly. When I wrote
If a developer holds some views that go against
those of the
average user he will have some very good reasons for that. There
is *no reason at all* to assume that the average user's ideas
are 'the right ones'.
first that was part of a much wider discussion, and second, the
phrase 'the right ones' was in single quotes. You didn't mention
either.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
7:29 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 06:55:18PM +0100, Louigi Verona wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Fons.
I actually approached it differently. To me the important thing was not to
"quote Fons", but to quote something that I observed as a common sentiment.
Next time I will rephrase it, I have no intention to quote you specifically.
But you did, presenting my words in way that made them look hilarious and
you audience ask 'who wrote *that* ?!".
You mention that the first part (I assume the first
sentence in the
paragraph) is part of the wider discussion. I have read that discussion
and actually have participated in it.
You and I know the context, and hence how to understand what I wrote.
Your audience doesn't.
You then mention that 'the right ones' is in
single quotes. Can you
expand on what those quotes mean?
They suggest strongly that I think that something like 'the right ideas'
may not even exist. That there may be different and incompatible ways of
doing things, and that consequently a developer and users may disagree
without either of them being right or wrong.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
23 Dec
23 Dec
5:14 p.m.
Hey Fons!
I would not call your words "hilarious", but I certainly do not agree with
them. Even in the original discussion, if we want to go back to that, I
disagreed and wrote up a pretty lengthy reply.
Initially you said that I have misrepresented your views. And, of course, I
would like to be as accurate as possible and to avoid misrepresentation and
straw-men arguments. However, I have the right to simply disagree. And
whether in my talk I choose to be super academic about it or make it sound
hilarious is a matter of style.
But just to make it clear, my goal here is to make sure I am not
misrepresenting views or missing better arguments. So, to go through your
points so far:
1. You said that I did not name you - and I replied that I used words that
happened to be authored by you to demonstrate a more generic attitude. This
was not meant to be Fons quote. I hope this is cleared. Next time I will
not use that quote, I will simply rephrase it as a generic statement.
2. You say that there was a wider context and that the audience does not
know it. I do not agree that there is any additional context required for
the audience. I also do not see how in the talk I misrepresent your phrase.
If it is so, please explain what is this wider context and why this is a
misrepresentation. Otherwise I would not be able to act on your feedback.
3. Whether there are "right ideas" or not was not the topic of my talk and
I do not think that this can be misunderstood. Obviously, we are talking
about the right ideas relative to set goals, in this case functional
software. I will think over whether I can rephrase that, but in my talk I
did not make any emphasis on the words "right ideas" and, as one can
readily see, this was not a topic of discussion at all.
Thank you for your patience, Fons, I appreciate your feedback!
3050
days inactive
3056
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Fons Adriaensen -
Len Ovens -
Louigi Verona -
Paul Davis