RB> I think you may be missing my point, namely that without a RB> tidy, integrated package of development libraries occasionally RB> projects just might never happen. As an application programmer RB> I don't want to always be fighting an uphill battle against shifting RB> or underpowered APIs - to some extent choosing the technology to suit RB> the developers is as important as choosing that which best fits the RB> problem.
There is *always* going to be that uphill battle, whether you are using a standard desktop library or GUI libraries. Desktop's change too, and what is to say KDE doesn't in the future redesign thing again as in KDE1 to KDE2? I totally disagree that the *easiest* path is the best path to take just to get something realized in real code. RB> But what about for those users who don't want a custom music workstation? RB> What about for those users that require desktop to run alongside their RB> normal, everyday applications? What about the person who doesn't RB> want to build a smattering of external libraries every time they RB> download a new music application to try out? What about coding to the RB> reality of the situation and keeping our sights on attainable targets RB> rather than coding to a _potential_ future? Because KDE is not standard. You are making an assumption on what people should use as a desktop and I know enough people NOT using KDE for me to believe that it will never be a standard under Linux. There will be no standard WM. Now, if you can run your application with just KDElibs and use whatever WM you want, then that I think is not bad. But if you *have* to have KDE, I don't think that is good for the world of linux IMO. As for user's that don't want a custom music workstation, that doesn't mean they will use KDE. Linux is not an operating system for simple users. It requires you to actually *think* about what you need to do. Every assumption you make takes away the freedoms that linux gives you. I agree with you that it can be a pain to compile libraries and install them, that along with all the different distro's and stuff, but here is my simple statement: Linux audio development to me is working towards a future system that is tightly integrated, highly flexible, and extremely powerful. LAD contains many pioneering people working together to build a framework at a lower level to integrate things in a way not attained before. If everyone works together to faciliate a powerful framework and an open system, in the end you will have a working environement other OS's can only dream of. Now, don't get me wrong, when I get my new linux machine built I will be trying out your software :) Just because I don't agree with your library choices doesn't mean I won't try it out and use it :) RB> Is it better having some software that works on a subsection of computers RB> than none that works on lots? No. Not in my opinion. To me it is better to have software that works for the majority of users than a minority. If I felt as you do, I would just use windows. Rick RB> Cheers, RB> R
