Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
X11 hides the hardware and allows the app to be independent of it, just as do Jack for audio, sockets for networking, etc. Do you suggest that I should not use Jack or sockets because e.g. Windows doesn't have them (natively) ? Actually yes, I am suggesting you don't use Jack or Sockets if you want your app to be well written and portable. Now, what has this really got to do with hardware? You design an app, it interfaces to some libraries - you talk about hardware abstraction but all the library does is give you access to some features you want. Applications which rely on X to 'distribute' themselves are now totally dependent on the underlying library for that feature because they have no other inherent method of doing it. They are totally dependent. This is not abstracting any function, you have just moved your dependency from specific hardware to specific software because you now need _that_ set of libraries to work. You talk about badly written applications but with respect to distribution models, if your app was not architected to support a feature then it was 'badly written' if you consider that feature to be useful. Back to bristol - the engine implements its DSP code because I considered that to be a base requirement of the product, but it also abstracts itself to support a distributed mode because I also consider that to be a base requirement. I did not rely on X11 to provide this feature for me just as I did not rely on any DSP ASIC or specific soundcard to provide my audio interface. And how does Bristol run remotely but with a local display if not by either X forwarding, or having some ad-hoc code to split the app into two parts ? The latter has to be redone for each and every application, if you ever want to use it remotely. You are getting off the point here which was the dependency on X11 but I am really honoured that you want to know so much about my software, I truly never realised you were such a fan. I only mentioned it because it highlights that fact that you don't need X to distribute an app but Fons, I would be happy to start another thread if you are that interested in blowing smoke where it isn't supposed to go and suffice to say bristol does not rely on any archaic windowing systems. You're mixing up thing here. Most systems do indeed disable direct connections to the X server (for good reasons) and expect you to use ssh -X instead No, Fons, you are mixing things up. Most systems do not even run X servers. Most systems don't even run *nix. Only a very tiny minority are still lumbered with this aged piece of code called X. In my previous post I said that a majority of these systems were not using X in a distributed fashion because it is either disabled, not available (firewalled) or plain uninteresting and I stand by that statement - a few users have replied that they use this feature and that speaks for itself, either a few users of a low volume interest list use the feature or a whole load of people use the list and don't use the feature. Now I like X11 but again I am not going to be a fanboy since that smells a lot like every Apple advocate who is blind to the limitations of their beloved products. If 'a generation of users' is any reference, we should just forget about Linux, switch to Windows and call it a day. We should also eat only fast food, believe everything the TV news and ads tell us, hate strangers and homosexuals, and generally be ignorant about everything. There's probably no argument more irrelevant than this sort of populist ones. So here I agree with Paul - something like wayland is what we will all be on in a few years. If you are relying on features of X for anything that you consider to be useful in your apps then you are likely to need some very fundamental changes to what is likely to be the next way of interfacing with your hardware. Now you did ask about models to distribute processing and asked me to quote them: go google it, there are already plenty of very good models out there and they are being used. If you application is 'badly written' as you put it, relying on a given interface for a potentially critical feature then it is going to have problems migrating. It has nothing to do with libraries that use X window Id in their specification, nor apps that work or not with X over SSH. As you well know, if you did not consider a given requirement before the fact then you are going to have problems implementing it after the ract, and offloading a feature onto the X11 libraries because as a fan boy you like the way it abstracts hardware means you are likely to be in for a world of hurt later. At least you do have a few years to put it straight but you do need to drop the benefits of the -X switch. Regards, nick. we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear”. Jim Wong, president of IT products, Acer
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:32:58PM +0100, Nick Copeland wrote: X11 hides the hardware and allows the app to be independent of it, just as do Jack for audio, sockets for networking, etc. Do you suggest that I should not use Jack or sockets because e.g. Windows doesn't have them (natively) ? Actually yes, I am suggesting you don't use Jack or Sockets if you want your app to be well written and portable. ... No, Fons, you are mixing things up. Most systems do not even run X servers. Most systems don't even run *nix. OK, let's make a few thing clear. I write for Linux. This list is called Linux Audio Developers. I don't care a second if my apps are not portable to OSX, windows, or whatever you like. Ciao, -- FA ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
I didn't follow the whole discussion, but I just want to toss out one not-so-stupid-as-it-may-seem possibility: HTML + CSS + JS. Take a look at YUI. I don't think it's stupid at all. Saying using browser technology for UI is stupid these days is the height of short-sightedness. That's clearly where everything is headed. I have a working plugin (called dirg) that provides a UI by hosting a web server which you access in the browser. It provides a grid UI either via a Novation Launchpad, or in the browser if you don't have a Launchpad. Web UIs definitely have a ton of wins (think tablets, remote control (i.e. network transparency), etc.) This concept made Fons ROTFL, no fons? Regards, nick. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
OK, let's make a few thing clear. I write for Linux. This list is called Linux Audio Developers. I don't care a second if my apps are not portable to OSX, windows, or whatever you like. So lets make a few other things clear: Maemo is Linux and a bog standard X app would perhaps just work. Android is linux and it would not with out a lot of changes. As has been mentioned, Ubuntu on mobile devices will not run X so they will not be portable. You write for Linux? Which (antiquated) version would that be? Now you asked about bristol - it runs on all of these. And distributed if you want, with the dumb -X option. There are a _lot_ of changes taking place in Linux at the moment. I mean you mouth of about using 'ssh -X' to write email from one side of the planet and, like, Fons, can you do that? If I had not been doing it 20 years ago I would not have believed it to be possible. It is old hat, move on fella. Regards, nick.___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Nick Copeland nickycopel...@hotmail.com wrote: [ ] does this (sub)dialog need to be so ... personal? so exclusive? so full of the righteousness of its proponents' viewpoints that there's no room for plurality, or doubt? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
On Tuesday 22 February 2011 21:36:11 Nick Copeland wrote: OK, let's make a few thing clear. I write for Linux. This list is called Linux Audio Developers. I don't care a second if my apps are not portable to OSX, windows, or whatever you like. So lets make a few other things clear: Maemo is Linux and a bog standard X app would perhaps just work. Android is linux and it would not with out a lot of changes. As has been mentioned, Ubuntu on mobile devices will not run X so they will not be portable. ubuntu will use wayland on all platforms according to mister shuttleworth, not just the mobile platforms. (What is a mobile-platform anyway? Your phone, yes. Your tabled? Your netbook? Your thin-client featuring the same hardware as the netbook? Your big workstation using the acceleration of wayland? And then there are these 'freaks' running linux on an atmel with framebuffer...) Have fun, Arnold signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
does this (sub)dialog need to be so ... personal? so exclusive? so full of the righteousness of its proponents' viewpoints that there's no room for plurality, or doubt? This list as far as I can remember has always been full of righteous opinions, and by pretty much all of its subscribers, Paul. Regards, nick. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 19:48 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:32:58PM +0100, Nick Copeland wrote: X11 hides the hardware and allows the app to be independent of it, just as do Jack for audio, sockets for networking, etc. Do you suggest that I should not use Jack or sockets because e.g. Windows doesn't have them (natively) ? Actually yes, I am suggesting you don't use Jack or Sockets if you want your app to be well written and portable. ... No, Fons, you are mixing things up. Most systems do not even run X servers. Most systems don't even run *nix. OK, let's make a few thing clear. I write for Linux. This list is called Linux Audio Developers. I don't care a second if my apps are not portable to OSX, windows, or whatever you like. Portability is an explicit goal of LV2 for obvious reasons. You are free to implement a particular host or plugin only for a particular platform, but making the spec itself non-portable is just straight up crap design with no benefit. It's silly to argue otherwise. That portability is a necessary goal for a successful audio plugin API is self-evident. You don't personally care? That's nice. Speaking of things people don't care about... ;) In other words, I don't care about portability is a valid perspective for an implementer. It's (worse than) worthless noise in a conversation about plugin interface design. Portability will not hurt you whatsoever, but it will increase adoption of LAD technology. Do you have any actual argument against it? As far as I am concerned, this is all about Libre audio software anyway, and I disagree with the name of this list/site (who actually cares about the specific kernel?). Getting e.g. OSX people on board is a part of making the LAD 'platorm' a success. If people on proprietary platforms start using free plugins, and they start using free hosts, eventually they're using free everything (e.g. a Jack/LV2 based music platform) and that's when they can switch to Lignux. Otherwise, they simply won't, and that is obviously not a win for LAD, Linux, Open Source, GNU, Free Software, or whatever label you prefer to rally behind. Maybe you don't care. Fine. You're obviously not the person to be designing our plugin API, then. Old persnickety grey-bearded UNIX administrators aren't exactly a significant or compelling market for music software. Perhaps for you and me, using Lignux is a given, and doing music stuff is something you may want to tinker with. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who use music software, it is the other way around. Put simply: I don't care about portability == Nobody cares about my software. -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
Excerpts from David Robillard's message of 2011-02-22 22:12:56 +0100: --snip-- Put simply: I don't care about portability == Nobody cares about my software. -dr Simply not true. I do agree however that portability (==OS independence) is a good idea for a plugin API. However, we all know that the currently successful audio plugin APIs are OS dependent. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Nick Copeland nickycopel...@hotmail.com wrote: This list as far as I can remember has always been full of righteous opinions, and by pretty much all of its subscribers, Paul. I think you're projecting. I love what you do for the audio community, but your demeaning behavior makes you look like an ass. Please stop. -- Devin Anderson devin (at) charityfinders (dot) com CharityFinders - http://www.charityfinders.com/ synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb
On 02/22/2011 10:12 PM, David Robillard wrote: As far as I am concerned, this is all about Libre audio software anyway, and I disagree with the name of this list/site (who actually cares about the specific kernel?). Getting e.g. OSX people on board is a part of making the LAD 'platorm' a success. If people on proprietary platforms start using free plugins, and they start using free hosts, eventually they're using free everything (e.g. a Jack/LV2 based music platform) and that's when they can switch to Lignux. Otherwise, they simply won't, and that is obviously not a win for LAD, Linux, Open Source, GNU, Free Software, or whatever label you prefer to rally behind. agreed. Maybe you don't care. Fine. You're obviously not the person to be designing our plugin API, then. Old persnickety grey-bearded UNIX administrators aren't exactly a significant or compelling market for music software. Perhaps for you and me, using Lignux is a given, and doing music stuff is something you may want to tinker with. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who use music software, it is the other way around. Put simply: I don't care about portability == Nobody cares about my software. compelling argument, but not totally true. i'm not really disagreeing with your earlier statements, but i think there are some interesting aspects to the old greybearded unix wizard approach that fons apparently stands for. here's a bunch of software that uses static, totally non-cross-platform makefiles that won't work out-of-the-box on 90% of all architectures. but they are dead easy to fix. it uses a custom x11 toolkit, custom thread library wrapper, and other idiosyncrasies. but it doesn't depend on sixteen other packages. which actually makes the stuff quite portable to osx, if you are willing to run x11 on top of it, without going through dependency hell. it has one heck of a large userbase, and some parts are considered reference implementations in their respective fields. it also tends to just work. i guess the argument is grand-unified-abstraction-meta-api vs. potentially limited but _focused_ software. you can use a rack full of kickass midi gear with crossbars, mappers, generic controllers, whatnot. or you can have a hot soldering iron at the ready on top of your organ at all times and just rewire it as needed :) the former approach will impose fewer limitations. but the latter allows you to make some noise right now. both are very valid imho. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
