7/26/2001 19:59:58, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ljp writes, in response to two criticisms of GNOME dependency:
>
>>To me, music is more important than any library ideologies. I wouldn't give
>>a rats ass if software was made with QBASIC, as long as it compiles fairly
>>easily
>
>and then continues:
>
>>(not alot of excessive library inclusion that I have to install
>>every libtom-libdick-and-libharry libs just to compile it- because there no
>>binaries available),
>
>which IMHO is precisely the problem with depending on GNOME ...
True, but I suppose ardour is any better? I want to try ardour, but gave up trying to
compile it? WHY? Because the libraries you use are 1) obscure and
hard to locate 2) there's at least one library that you have (had?) ONLY cvs access
to, making it for developers only. 3) I'd rather use something that allows
me to record music rather than compiling/installing several, several unstable
libraries to get it to even compile, much less link correctly.
I simply gave up on it. Besides, I can go download Cubase and be recording in about 5
minutes. No compiling needed. No searching for obscure unstable
libraries to compile, which in turn often require installing OTHER libraries.
Granted gnome is like that also. but ardour is worse in that aspect. It's like a pot
calling the kettle black.
I'm not disparging all the work you do. As a developer myself, I know that you put
alot of time into the code, and I respect you for that. In fact, I'd love to try
ardour out. I bought an rme card because of linux drivers. But it's the library
thang.....
One thing that would help, is on the ardour web page (I haven't checked out the web
page lately- sorry) , have links to all the libraries needed. Much better
than finding out during ./configure and having to do a google search for them, one by
one when it fails to configure. I hate that. Gnome is like that also.
or even better, links to any binaries that the dist's. might have available.
ljp
