Hi all, There's a lot of interesting points brought up: I've only just had the time to read them, and reply to the points that most speak to me (the individual) and me (as OpenAV).
Charles Henry wrote: > There does not currently exist a company that is credibly making a complete, > whole-system design approach to problems such as audio recording and live > sound processing. There are various companies working on this type of integration though: there are various HW/SW combo that works with a computer, and integrates very well: sure they're not selling the PC yet: but it won't be long I think. Actually they're probably working on developing that right now :D (example that I worked with http://www.presonus.com/products/StudioLive-16.0.2 ) Charles Henry also wrote: > To change: incentive structure. There must be some kind of initiative > (non-profit or other organization) that appeals to developers and meets the > economic constraints of the world we live in, to be feasible. Agreed: with my OpenAV hat on, that's something that I'm thinking about and concidering how I can earn a living somehow by developing open music software. Fons wrote: > there's one significant difference between the users who expect everything > (including thinking) to be done for them, and those who are prepared to > learn: the latter will say 'thank you'. Agreed, I also feel that doing the thinking for a user of a piece of software is not the right thing: I have no issue with a user having to spend time to learn to use a domain and tool. What I do want to note here, is that said user should not have to learn an unrelated-domain, in order to use the software in the target domain. In my opinion, the learning curve is too steep (or perhaps more accurately too board) for musicians starting to use linux-audio. Louigi Verona wrote: > I will probably record a podcast lil later Cool, looking forward to your opinion as a user. Tom wrote: > Looking at one of the slides.. i find it a strange idea that a CEO would do > the (software, "UX") design Indeed: and I don't agree with everything in the talk; this is a good example. Tom also wrote: > Hiding behind the term "professional" to describe software, that is in fact > just a cumbersome pile of crap (and thus professional) is another "strategy" > i can observe It is easy to have bad/overly-complicated workflow in a piece of software, and call it "professional" to make up for it. That's pretty much exactly why I started this thread: thanks for making it obvious to me :) Paul Davis wrote: > it isn't about being a professional or not In my opinion its about creating software that caters for a workflow, or "use case" if that's a term you prefer. This is about designing software for a particular use-case, and *then* focussing on the experience while using it. The talk mentions "the age of experience", perhaps I interchange the word "workflow" and "experience" sometimes. A smooth workflow provides a good experience. And certain use-cases are catered for very well by certain programs *features*, but the *experience* or *workflow* of using it is not something that I feel is somewhat lacking. Flo wrote: > I'm an enthusiast and I don't need shiny tools and integration. I need well > designed (software design, separation of concern, multiple ways of > interfacing, language bindings, etc.) building blocks to tinker and > experiment with. And I understand that there is a need for software to cater for your use case, or preferred workflow too. That's the lower-left quadrant in the talk: "Open Features-driven" tools. Very powerful when in very capable hands. Its users who would prefer a smooth experience that do not have software available to them on linux audio right now. And its designing and building software in that domain that I'm interested in (both as "me", and OpenAV). Cheers, -Harry -- http://openavproductions.com _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev