On Sunday 01 Aug 2004 14:30, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > But as for the first link, it reminds me another complain from that > musician. He said that all of the dialogs in Logic (I second it > myself) are much smaller and they requires less space
That's true. Creating such dialogs is hard, however. This (and related subjects such as the font sizes in instrument parameter combos) have been discussed quite a bit recently. All offers of help have always been welcome. > Without any offence, how often do you use apps like Logic or Cubase? Very little. Richard was a fluent Logic user when we started serious work on RG4, but I have never used Logic because there's no free demo available, and I only use the Cubase and Sonar demos when I want to compare how things work in them. I have never been in a position to afford to buy any of these for my own musical use (which is frankly fairly limited given the amount of time I spend coding), I will not buy any of them merely to better learn how to replace them, and I will not use cracked versions. Frankly I am not interested in comparison with Logic for its own sake. Given that Rosegarden has a tiny development team and is completely free, and Logic has had a far more significant development effort, is now owned by one of the world's biggest computer companies, and costs hundreds of dollars, I think the only sane comparison for Rosegarden is with itself: i.e. how can we make it better than it is? Any criticism that says "Rosegarden is not as good as Logic in such-and-such a way" without also containing some worthwhile direction for making it as good is probably wasted. This is basically a roundabout way of saying that I _am_ a little bit offended by this angle of debate, which really seems to be saying to me that if only the Rosegarden developers had used Cubase or Logic more, then we would be more skilled at designing dialogs, or would be able to find thirty hours in the day for development work, or there would be more of us. Or even hell, we might have an unlimited amount of money and be able to develop free software forever and never have to earn. There always is a point where we need to be able to look at what we've done and say "yes, this is good", and if we reach that point without being able to feel that, then we get dispirited. Richard reached that point at least a year ago and I think has found it harder to motivate himself for pure development work ever since. I am more or less at that point now, but when I look at Rosegarden now, I believe that it is a good and useful program, and that it is right that we call it feature complete for 1.0 and that we address only the bugs, not the design flaws or the omissions, for a while. I want people to at least acknowledge that although it can never be perfect by design, in terms of function and usability it is one of the best pieces of music software on Linux and in many ways better than many on other platforms as well. There will always be other things to do, but we simply can't do them all. Apologies if this comes across as an inappropriate rant in response to a simple question. Call it post-release depression. Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
