David Gerard kirjoitti 2015-01-29 12:16: > On 28 January 2015 at 23:44, Amadeus Folego <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If there are compelling reasons they'll move. >> Wouldn't you prefer starting a project on LMMS 2.0 if it has LV2 >> support? No crashes? A lot of usability improvements? Improved midi >> capabilities? Export individual FX Channels? Etc... > > > If you break users' stuff, they will leave and not come back. And they > will be entirely correct to do so, else it would be encouraging you do > it again with 3.0.
You're suddenly the spokesman for the entire userbase of LMMS I see... I've said this many times before, but APPARENTLY it still needs repeating, so say it with me: LMMS is developed by volunteer efforts, for free. There's absolutely no obligation on part of the developers to offer any kind of technical support, the software is provided AS-IS without any warranty etc. Backwards compatibility is not our obligation, it's a service we provide (again, for free), but if providing that service is counter-productive in a certain case, then WE DON'T ACTUALLY OWE IT TO ANYONE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE. And sorry if I sound a bit harsh here, but I'm getting kind of tired of people who have no idea about the amount of work and coordination necessary for something like LMMS to be maintained, coming here and telling us what we "need to do". As if we're some kind of trained animals that have to be "encouraged" to do things the way the user feels entitled to... newsflash, we're not. You use the software if you like it, you don't if you don't. But unless you participate in development, you have no business dictating to developers what they should do. Suggestions, feature requests are fine, but demands are not. We're not slaves nor even paid workers. > When 2.0 comes out, the *first* thing users will do is try their 1.2 > files in it. > If you break users' work, they will never forgive you, and it's > ridiculous for you to expect otherwise. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. No work is being broken. Users who feel attached to their old project files can keep on using the last version they work in for all eternity. No one is stopping them from doing that. We're not visiting every user's home and forcibly deleting old project files from their hard drive, nor are we scouring the net free of old versions of LMMS. That said... there's one more thing I want to say, and this is the only thing I'm going to say about the 2.0 efforts in this thread. The 2.0 plan is an ambitious one with upsides and downsides, and the changes that are planned for it are drastic - controversy was and is expected. But you can't actually develop a software the size of LMMS and never piss off anyone, never break anyone's workflow, there's always someone who is dissatisfied with some change. However, I can't do the 2.0 transition alone. So if everyone else feels they'd rather continue working on LMMS 1.3 and maintain backwards compat, then that's that. I can't actually force people to accept the idea. But I personally have no interest in working on LMMS 1.3. At all. Because the way I see it, these changes that are planned for 2.0 are necessary for making LMMS a real, professional grade music application instead of the "semibroken toy DAW" it is currently known as - and I'm saying this as someone who loves LMMS, it's just that if you ask someone who's used to working with pro-audio tools to take a look at LMMS, that's the impression they'll get from it in its current state. Backwards compat isn't being broken out of spite. There's a reason for every planned breakage. And the reason they're all shoved into 2.0 is that it's better if there isn't multiple versions with breakage, that all the breakage happens at one version. I don't actually have to work on LMMS. If everyone else thinks LMMS 2.0 is a bad idea, I can just go on to see if the qtractor guys need my help, or something (or just concentrate on music and start coding LV2 plugins or something). The point is, without the 2.0 effort, I see no future for LMMS, and maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's the way I see it so I won't want to work on it. People can keep adding bandages to the broken engine, keep on working on external features like UI and stepping around design flaws, building up the legacy cruft... but I want no part of that. This is not meant as a blackmailing "my way or the highway" stance. It's just that I really like LMMS, but I've also gotten familiar enough with the codebase to see the limitations of it, and I want us to fix those limitations so that we can create something greater in the future. If that's not going to happen, then I just feel I have better uses for my time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
