Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Lionstracs.
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 23.04, Doug Wellington wrote: [...] The big difference is that when the job is done, the result is *really* yours to keep. You won't find yourself forced to move to a new environment a few years later, just because someone decides it's time to change the whole environment to comply with the latest fads, or because the actual owner of your software went out of business. Heehee... I know plenty of people still using old environments and technology! Atari? Amiga? Moog? Sequential? Fender? Vox? How about a nice TB-303 anybody...? I know people who still swear by Opcode, while swearing *at* Gibson. I'm still using a 450 MHz P-II running Win98se (and Microsoft is *still* supporting it)! I used a Pentium 166 running Win95 original (not OSR2, that is), until the mainboard died recently. Then I moved the OS (yet another time) to an old dual P-II 233 box. (Where it would obviously use only one CPU and one of the two outputs on the video card.) It wasn't until last week I *finally* installed Win2k on that box. The seemingly indestructible Win95 install is still lying around on the old drive, just in case... :-) More interestingly; given that I use Linux 99% of the time, what did I use this Win95 system for. Well, not for Windows development. I used it to compile DOS (Real Mode) software, using Borland C++ for DOS. (Which has a few compiler bugs I have to work around, of course.) That is, DOS software that is still *in use*, running mostly on embedded 386 and 486 hardware. The major problem here is that I have to maintain and update that software (which is big, bloated and broken by design) while trying to work on the new (Linux based) replacement. My main recording softare (Paris) hasn't been updated in years! Does that mean I have to give it up? Nope, not if it does the job. Apparently, a few users still have working instruments from the pre-Reologica era, based on 8 bit computers and/or analog signa processing. I know some people are still using ABC80 computers for various stuff. However, if they need a new feature or run into a showstopper bug, they're basically screwed. New software *and* hardware is the only solution. Even if the companies behind the systems are still around, the chances of them being willing or able to help with the old stuff are minimal - and note that this is a low volume market, where it's not unusual to implement new features just to close *one* deal. What about that old Studer??? Oh, that old thing...? Heck, no technology is immune to the obsolesence due to latest and greatest syndrome. Look at my Waldorf Microwave XT... Sigh... That's very true as well - but in the case of development tools, customized software and other generally long lived stuff, the important part is whether or not you can maintain it five or ten years later, in case you're one of few remaining users by then. Paying some cash to get started quicker can end up being *very* expensive down the road. Or not, depending... ;-) Right. Simple turnkey systems like h/w synths, lab instruments and most embedded computers in household appliances, cars etc, usually just do the job, until the hardware breaks down eventually, or the equipment is replaced for some reason. More complex systems usually depend more on continous maintenance. That's one of the major reasons why Free/Open Source solutions are becoming more and more popular. Ah, let me guess - you're an Open Source Advocate aren't you? ;-) ;-) ;-) Why would you think... DOH! ;-) Let's just say I've been burned a few times too many by dead proprietary products, products that fail to do the job only because modifications are impossible and/or illegal, and stuff like that. I don't like the idea of depending on stuff I can't control. Damn, $300 a year for Red Hat Enterprise? I thought it was free!!! Well, it is, except for any proprietary software they might have thrown in. What you're paying for is pressed CDs, printed documentation, and most importantly, support. If you only need the Free software, you can just download it or get it on CDs from somewhere else. Can you get Windows at a lower price, if you don't need support and stuff...? ;-) //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- Audiality ---. | Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. | | MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... | `--- http://audiality.org -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Lionstracs.
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 00.30, Kai Vehmanen wrote: [...] I'm pretty confident that I will be able to run the audio sw setup I'm using now on modern hw in the future, too. All it takes is to someone to port Linux to the new hw, and keep the apps I use up-to-date. Both are tasks that I can (in the worst-case) do myself, or pay someone to do. Exactly. Meanwhile, some of the Borland-only stuff that old DOS software uses, I'd have to reimplement from scratch to port, as there's no source available. :-/ I actually tried to port it to DJGPP, but gave up, since it wasn't worth the effort. (There are other reasons to rewrite that software, so the motivation to port it weren't *that* strong. That might change soon though, as the old h/w design can no longer be built due to out-of-production silicon without sufficiently compatible replacements, and the new s/w is not yet ready for use...) Now as for the stuff I've recorded with Win95/98 audio apps, to access them from a modern PC, I need to buy new license for W2000/XP, and licenses for the W2000/XP compatible versions of the audio software I've used. And if the companies go out of business, I might have to resort to reverse-engineering their session-formats to get access to my old recordings. This can be significantly more difficult (and costly if I pay someone else to do it) than keeping my Linux audio setup running. Yes... That's the kind of stuff that makes me nervous when using closed source tools for anything. What will happen with my files down the road? //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- Audiality ---. | Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. | | MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... | `--- http://audiality.org -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade show, Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux audio community. No - a consortium can only represent its members. The only true representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio Developers. By which you mean members of a mailing list, or the actual developers doing the work? This may come as a surprise to you, but many libre software developers admit that they need help to promote their software - either because they don't have the time, experience of working with the media or public speaking skills. The organisers have agreed to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do. So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? If you read up on the event you'll see it is specifically about audio and music technology, which LinuxTag is not. Running this kind of stand at a Linux event would be 'preaching to the converted'. As for ZKM, that is a developer event, not really an event for users who don't even know what Linux is yet. The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux Audio applications. er... that's what we are doing. Companies have resources to promote themselves. I don't think you appreciate the situation with regard to the small companies that are funding free software development, while trying to make a living for developers at the same time. They are not rich. Even combined, their resources are tiny compared to the proprietary software companies. And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event. What have you got against users? Is it because I'm a user rather than a developer? The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote their open source Linux Audio applications. Agreed - but only events in Germany as far as I know. There are other countries too. They never called themselves the directors of LAD. Perhaps that's because a mailing list is not an organisation. If they had set up an organisation and called themselves directors of it, I don't think anyone would have complained. I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing into a larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an event that will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users this year. A place where the developers, journalists and music industry can meet each other. As long as they a) know the event exists and b) are sufficiently interested to travel to Germany for it. I think such an event is much more important than any stand. Yes - but we're aiming our effort at a very different audience. Don't get me wrong. I apreciate that you're organising an event. Thanks for the appreciation! But it's an event just like the other events. In no way is it more important than the others. I never said it was. I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium Already done. Regarding the consortium list. The old thread is gone. Was there anything you should hide? No. It was only a temporary list. I believe that another private mailing list with the old thread still exists. You sound paranoid. Cheers Daniel
[linux-audio-dev] Re: [Jackit-devel] Announce - jack.clock
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:06:03 +1100, Rohan Drape wrote: Also, what OSC library are you using? libOSC and OSC Kit seem to be non-rentrant and a bit painful to use. jack.clock implements only a subset of the OSC protocol, more or less the same subset as SuperCollider [SC3], and for more or less the same reasons. In particular it does not implement the patten matching rules and does not implement a scheduler for incoming messages [ie. it does not accept incoming bundles]. I will add a note to this effect in the manual. Restricting address names to seven printing characters makes method dispatch an eight byte equality operation. Given this the implementation is straightforward and does not require a library beyond a simple network/host byte order convenience set. The current implementation is unneccesarily restritive about the type of numerical arguments, this should be relaxed, which will require a slightly more sophistcated infrastructure. I looked briefly at the libraries you mention a few years ago and decided much the same thing. Thanks, thats helpful. I have a number of things I'd like to use OSC for (and I've heard plenty of other linux audio people talking about starting to use it), but theres a few things that bug me about it: * Libraries not great. this seems solved by using the subset you're talking about, I think it will be fine for my applications. I dont like reinventing the wheel, but I need threadsafeness, and implementing a library for the subset youre talking about seems easy. * No service discovery. This is a big deal, but can be solved /if/ we define a service discovery service before too many more people implement OSC support :) The current situation where people just try to pick a port number noone else is using (AFAICT) and hope it gets telepathically transmitted to its peers is a bit fragile. Unless theres a database of port ranges I haven't found? * No method query. It would be nice if there was a well-known method that caused some metadata about the other methods to be dumped. Maybe there is and I just haven't seen it. This could also be done in the service discovery stage though, through advertisment. FWIW (I have some experience of optimising URL matchers), I would produce a 64bit (or maybe only 32bit) hash of the paths, hash up incoming paths and do a match on that. Its pretty quick (the only extra operation is the hash and it will be 1000 P3 cycles to execute), and allows arbitrary length paths. I'm very happy to discussus a GPL'd library implementation or service discovery, but we should probably continue on l-a-d. I should really have posted my questions there too. I've CC'd this reply. - Steve
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [Jackit-devel] Announce - jack.clock
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:16:40AM +, Steve Harris wrote: Thanks, thats helpful. I have a number of things I'd like to use OSC for (and I've heard plenty of other linux audio people talking about starting to use it), but theres a few things that bug me about it: * Libraries not great. this seems solved by using the subset you're for projects i was involved i used a free c++-library called libOSC++, to which i added the network stuff (http://wiretap.stetson.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/libOSC++/?only_with_tag=fraunhofer) it has several limitations and is still not multithreaded, but i planned to review the complete design of the thing. steve, we talked about it in the train on the way back from the first lad meeting at zkm... reinventing the wheel, but I need threadsafeness, and implementing a library for the subset youre talking about seems easy. i ever dreamed of a full implementation of osc in an object oriented, modern, easy-to-use way... perhaps it would be great to have an extensible C library for that and a C++-wrapper, thus doubling efforts is avoided. define a service discovery service before too many more people implement OSC support :) The current situation where people just try to pick a port number noone else is using (AFAICT) and hope it gets telepathically great idea. AFAIK there is not yet a standard about that. * No method query. It would be nice if there was a well-known method that caused some metadata about the other methods to be dumped. Maybe there do you mean something like the documentation query in OSC? its syntax is worth discussing, but the idea in general seems to be o.k. FWIW (I have some experience of optimising URL matchers), I would produce a 64bit (or maybe only 32bit) hash of the paths, hash up incoming paths that's a really great idea. if we decide to implement pattern matching, for incoming messages containing wildcards a fallback to normal matching could take place. I'm very happy to discussus a GPL'd library implementation or service discovery, but we should probably continue on l-a-d. I should really have posted my questions there too. I've CC'd this reply. in my opinion we should continue this on the osc-dev list. i think there are many other people interested in our discussion which are no ladies. guess, matt wright (the inventor of osc) would be quite happy about that, too. ladies being interested in osc should subscribe to osc-dev. there's not much traffic on it during the last month -- which should change :-) bests martin
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you have had enough of this thread already... but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel it's time to sound off: Marek Peteraj wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:01, Daniel James wrote: It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade show, Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio Developers. marek, please: it's time to shut up. i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community. matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux audio community. none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus. SO WHAT? there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i. this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times, and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone interested in linux audio uses it. nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others. linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if it fails, so what? nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl - chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of the community away. where is the problem? there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe will be for the good of linux audio. be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it really endanger or take away anything that the community already has? the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list. if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts? excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and* money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in return for my efforts. in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to criticism. this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all. on the basis that we will be offering free advice and information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do. So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event. The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves the directors of LAD. nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a ball rolling. just as matthias and frank usurped the role of conference organizers. *to*get*something*done* ! if you consider some of his actions bad style, then fine, but show some style yourself when
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
What Joern said. On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:45:20PM +0100, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: (snip) -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's UNFORTUNATE PANTS PERVERT! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)
[linux-audio-dev] Re: Project: modular synth editor
From: Dave Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm currently working on an opengl user interface for a game I'm writing. Once you get a scenegraph set up (so child widgets inherit parent transforms etc) it's not too hard to get something working. What would be that something? Not much? I recently proposed that GDK/GTK should be extended with OpenGL widgets so that there are no two distinct systems a developer have to use. It simply does not work if a developer has to write, e.g. menu routines from scratch. Converting a large GTK application to use OpenGL widgets would then be an easy task. Regards, Juhana
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 15:45, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you have had enough of this thread already... but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel it's time to sound off: Marek Peteraj wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:01, Daniel James wrote: It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade show, Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio Developers. marek, please: it's time to shut up. i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community. matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux audio community. none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus. SO WHAT? there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i. this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times, and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone interested in linux audio uses it. nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others. linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if it fails, so what? nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl - chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of the community away. where is the problem? there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe will be for the good of linux audio. be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it really endanger or take away anything that the community already has? the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list. if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts? excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and* money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in return for my efforts. in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to criticism. this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all. on the basis that we will be offering free advice and information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do. So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event. The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves the directors of LAD. nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a ball rolling. ?
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 11:10, Daniel James wrote: It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade show, Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux audio community. No - a consortium can only represent its members. Linux audio community gets representation... The only true representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio Developers. By which you mean members of a mailing list, or the actual developers doing the work? This may come as a surprise to you, but many libre software developers admit that they need help to promote their software - either because they don't have the time, experience of working with the media or public speaking skills. Then let's focus on software and its developers. The organisers have agreed to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do. So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? If you read up on the event you'll see it is specifically about audio and music technology, which LinuxTag is not. Running this kind of stand at a Linux event would be 'preaching to the converted'. As for ZKM, that is a developer event, not really an event for users who don't even know what Linux is yet. The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux Audio applications. er... that's what we are doing. Companies have resources to promote themselves. I don't think you appreciate the situation with regard to the small companies that are funding free software development, while trying to make a living for developers at the same time. They are not rich. Even combined, their resources are tiny compared to the proprietary software companies. And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event. What have you got against users? Is it because I'm a user rather than a developer? The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote their open source Linux Audio applications. Agreed - but only events in Germany as far as I know. There are other countries too. http://www.metadecks.org/events/lca2004/ They never called themselves the directors of LAD. Perhaps that's because a mailing list is not an organisation. If they had set up an organisation and called themselves directors of it, I don't think anyone would have complained. I see ZKM as a very important event simply because it's growing into a larger conference, an event solely aimed at Linux Audio, an event that will be aimed at both Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users this year. A place where the developers, journalists and music industry can meet each other. As long as they a) know the event exists and b) are sufficiently interested to travel to Germany for it. http://www.metadecks.org/events/lca2004/ I think such an event is much more important than any stand. Yes - but we're aiming our effort at a very different audience. Could you explain? I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium Already done. Already done witholding? Regarding the consortium list. The old thread is gone. Was there anything you should hide? No. It was only a temporary list. I believe that another private mailing list with the old thread still exists. You sound paranoid. http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p Marek
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
I'm only a lurker, but I concur with Joern. -Lea. On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 14:45, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you have had enough of this thread already... but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel it's time to sound off: Marek Peteraj wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:01, Daniel James wrote: It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade show, Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio Developers. marek, please: it's time to shut up. i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community. matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux audio community. none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus. SO WHAT? there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i. this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times, and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone interested in linux audio uses it. nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others. linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if it fails, so what? nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl - chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of the community away. where is the problem? there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe will be for the good of linux audio. be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it really endanger or take away anything that the community already has? the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list. if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts? excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and* money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in return for my efforts. in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to criticism. this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all. on the basis that we will be offering free advice and information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do. So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event. The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves the directors of LAD. nor does david. he stepped in as
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 15:45, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: this is a somewhat heated reply, you may want to skip it entirely if you have had enough of this thread already... but since my own efforts are being drawn into the argument now, i feel it's time to sound off: Marek Peteraj wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:01, Daniel James wrote: It's true that I did initiate the arrangement whereby the Linux audio community gets representation at a major UK audio industry trade show, Suddenly you're now speaking as the representative of the whole Linux audio community. But you're not. Neither am I. The only true representatives of the Linux Audio community are the Linux Audio Developers. marek, please: it's time to shut up. i too have been speaking as a representative of the linux audio community on various occasions. frank neumann has even been so bold as to organize a trade show booth in the name of the linux audio community. matthias nagorni is just now and in front of everyone's eyes committing the heinous atrocity of organizing a conference in the name of the linux audio community. none of us has obtained anyone's mandate, none of us has discussed everything we do on this list up to the point of consensus. SO WHAT? there is no such thing as a linux audio community, except for *what people do*. so daniel is as much part of it as you and i. this list is just a list. a means of communication. it's great at times, and sometimes it's not. as pointed out before, not even everyone interested in linux audio uses it. nowhere on the whole wide web will you find a clear definition of what the linux audio community is and who can speak for it. and you are not going to define it either by continous nit-picking at the efforts of others. linux audio is what people do with it. that's what free software communities are about. if somebody tries to put an organisation together to provide a new forum for exchange with (shudder ;) commercial developers, that can only enrich the community. if it works, great, if it fails, so what? nobody is going to take all the code away from you (thanks to the gpl - chapeau, mr. stallman!), nobody is going to take all the contributors of the community away. where is the problem? there have been some valid points of criticism on how david is organizing and presenting his effort. i'm sure these can and should be discussed. but there is absolutely and utterly no point in bashing peoples' heads in for working free-of-charge towards what they believe will be for the good of linux audio. be pragmatic: if the linuxaudio.org effort is worth crap, then it's going to die a good and honest open-source death. if it prospers, then it will add another facet to the linux audio community. but how could it really endanger or take away anything that the community already has? the only thing i see endangered here is the atmosphere of mutual respect that has been one of the pillars of this mailing list. if you fear fragmentation of the community, well, that too is part of the game. projects are forked, forks are healed, projects succeed and die, communities form and disperse themselves. no harm in voicing your fear of fragmentation, but why attack people and discredit their efforts? excuse me for ranting, but i too have invested a lot of free time *and* money to advocate linux audio and the linux audio community. i want to continue to do this *as i see fit*, to the best of my knowledge, and i certainly do not want to face a stupid public tribunal such as this in return for my efforts. in my view, david first of all deserves a huge cheer for a new idea and a lot of work, and then we can discuss the points that were subject to criticism. this whole thread sadly reminds me again of the zynaddsubfx flamewar about the weird jesus clause its author had on his website. well, above all, imnsho, if some new thing comes with strings attached that do not suit you, just ignore it. you haven't lost anything, and nothing is being taken away from you. it's an offer, after all. on the basis that we will be offering free advice and information rather than a sales pitch. The organisers have agreed to give us the stand at cost, which they didn't have to do. So how is that different from LinuxTag or ZKM? Again, what are we trying to promote? The only thing we should promote right now are the Linux Audio applications. Companies have resources to promote themselves. And it makes no sense to promote Linux Audio Users at such event. The problem is - Frank, Joern, Matthias were doing a great job organising events and helping the Linux Audio Developers to promote their open source Linux Audio applications. They never called themselves the directors of LAD. nor does david. he stepped in as director of linuxaudio.org to get a ball rolling. just as
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:32, Marek Peteraj wrote: You sound paranoid. http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p Marek I would really rather not fuel this thread (personally I think both sides are being incredibly stupid) but this is the one thing that bothers me. Why is this list closed? Memership will be held for approval, and the archive isn't available for browsing.. what gives? Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source community'.. -Dave
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Project: modular synth editor
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:05:15PM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: From: Dave Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm currently working on an opengl user interface for a game I'm writing. Once you get a scenegraph set up (so child widgets inherit parent transforms etc) it's not too hard to get something working. What would be that something? Not much? I recently proposed that GDK/GTK should be extended with OpenGL widgets so that there are no two distinct systems a developer have to use. It simply does not work if a developer has to write, e.g. menu routines from scratch. Converting a large GTK application to use OpenGL widgets would then be an easy task. google for gtkglext -- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
Hello Marek, Linux audio community gets representation... I'm not sure where you're quoting from - I can't see that phrase in the announcement press release for the consortium or the About page of the website. Then let's focus on software and its developers. You can focus on developers if you like, but as a humble user I'd like to be involved too. Agreed - but only events in Germany as far as I know. There are other countries too. http://www.metadecks.org/events/lca2004/ Okay, Germany plus one mini-conference in Australia. That leaves about 190 other countries. Yes - but we're aiming our effort at a very different audience. Could you explain? People who need to use this kind of software on a daily basis but have low awareness of Linux and/or libre software. By contrast, if you have an audio stand at a general Linux event you will find high awareness of libre software but only a small minority of specialist audio users. (Those Linux events are still worth doing, in my opinion, but they don't reach many new people). I urge you again to withhold the establishing of any consortium Already done. Already done witholding? Not witholding at all - that was your idea. I believe that another private mailing list with the old thread still exists. You sound paranoid. http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p That's not another private list, it's the original list. There are no other private lists. And just for you, I've changed the archives from private to public: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/consortium-p/ I'll warn you though, it might not be very interesting reading. Cheers Daniel
[linux-audio-dev] [OT] Fw: 4 Open positions at the Music Technology Group
Begin forwarded message: The Music Technology Group of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona (www.iua.upf.es/mtg), a research group known for its work on audio processing technologies and their musical and multimedia applications, has 4 open positions in different areas and projects: - Graphical interface designer and programmer (MTG-2004-01-UI) - Young researcher: Java, C++ and Artificial Intelligence (MTG-2004-01-PAI) - Young researcher: Audio signal processing (MTG-2004-01-PSP) - Technician for digital music library classification (MTG-2004-01-DML) Find the details on our web page (Join us section). Interested people should send an updated resume (CV) to Salvador Gurrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
Has anyone actually been denied membership to the mailing list yet? I'm sure the creator of the list had some reasons for that choice. Taybin -Original Message- From: Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jan 21, 2004 12:06 PM To: The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:32, Marek Peteraj wrote: You sound paranoid. http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p Marek I would really rather not fuel this thread (personally I think both sides are being incredibly stupid) but this is the one thing that bothers me. Why is this list closed? Memership will be held for approval, and the archive isn't available for browsing.. what gives? Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source community'.. -Dave
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
Why is this list closed? It was just set up temporarily because my cc: list was getting rather long. We've got a proper list now. the archive isn't available for browsing It is now: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/consortium-p/ Honestly, I didn't think anyone else would be interested. Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source community'.. No-one on this list ever sent a private email? Cheers Daniel
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Lionstracs.
Previously: Or someone decides that they're not supporting the latest hardware with their old software leading to my favorite question - So, how's that USB mouse working out for you under NT?. Heehee, actually, I *DO* use a USB mouse and keyboard on NT...! -Doug
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:25, Daniel James wrote: Why is this list closed? It was just set up temporarily because my cc: list was getting rather long. We've got a proper list now. the archive isn't available for browsing It is now: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/consortium-p/ Honestly, I didn't think anyone else would be interested. Well, when there's a mailing list somewhere that supposedly represents 'linux audio', people should be able to read it. Archive is open now, end of issue. (For the record, you should be making things open-by-default, or people /will/ question your motives regardless) Certainly not the way things are done in the 'open source community'.. No-one on this list ever sent a private email? Oh, come on. Sending someone a private email and having a private mailing list (to represent the community no less) is not even remotely the same thing. -Dave
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:45, Andrea Glorioso wrote: ironic I don't know if it's a good or bad habit, but one thing is sure: neither Daniel nor the rest of the Consortium ever told me to close the list and keep the archives private so that we could proceed in our secret project to overthrow the sacred Linux Audio Developers Guild [0] and put them into the rapacious hands of Microsoft (of course, all members of the Consortium are secretly paid by Microsoft). /ironic ? Grow up. I mentioned a concern about the list being closed and all of a sudden I'm being flamed and made fun of? (The first thing I ever said in this discussion I might add) Maybe if you're trying to 'represent' people you should adopt a mannerism not characteristic of 14-year-old script kiddies. The list was closed, it shouldn't have been closed, now it isn't, problem over. Besides, if you have such a problem with openness maybe you shouldn't be trying to represent a community founded upon it. (For the record, I didn't used to think linuxaudio.org was a bad idea at all. Now I'm not so sure.) -Dave
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
[Asbestos underwear on!] I'm pretty new here, so forgive me for sticking my nose into this thread, but it looks like whoever you are, Marek, you just seem pissed off that you didn't come up with the idea yourself and now you're playing the role of the injured ego...? How old are you? -Doug
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ? Grow up. I mentioned a concern about the list being closed and all of a sudden I'm being flamed and made fun of? (The first thing I ever said in this discussion I might add) Maybe if you're trying to 'represent' peopleyou should adopt a mannerism not characteristic of 14-year-old script kiddies. Sigh. I guess next time I'll have to add a longer disclaimer. For the record, I didn't mean to take fun on you. I was trying (albeit with poor results) to have some fun together (maybe auto-ironic is a better tag, I don't know). The list was closed, it shouldn't have been closed, That's an opinion. Given that the list was simply a group of Cc: (turned into a list for purely practical reasons) I beg to disagree. now it isn't, problem over. Besides, if you have such a problem with openness maybe you shouldn't be trying to represent a community founded upon it. I still don'tunderstand how the Linuxaudio.org consortiumis represting anyone but its members (as is the case for all consortia, which usually don't represent anyone but their own members). (For the record, I didn't used to think linuxaudio.org was a bad idea at all. Now I'm not so sure.) Simply because of my bad sense of humour (or my lack of expressive capabilities, partly due to the fact I'm not a native english speaker)? I'm quite sure there are plenty of factual reasons on which to base one's own judgement of the Consortium, be it positive or negative. Its activities could be a good start. P.S.: maybe we could move this thread somewhere else. I feel a bit OT here. bye, andrea
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
Wow! I managed to delete every single one of those ridiculous linuxaudio.org posts. I think I've got carpal tunnel syndrome though. Now, is everybody happy? If not, can we please move this thread to the mailing list at whining.org and return our attention to something important? Jan On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 15:55, Marek Peteraj wrote: I still don'tunderstand how the Linuxaudio.org consortiumis represting anyone but its members (as is the case for all consortia, which usually don't represent anyone but their own members). We all want to promote Linux Audio. The question is - what's the best way to do it? As i see it, the term 'linuxaudio' unifies the following: *linux audio developers *linux audio users *linux audio applications/projects We shoudln't further fragment the community by setting up more mailing lists and using a domainname which can act as an entrance or a meeting point for all the 3 mentioned above. The second problem is - protection. OSS software can be easily abused as it's 'naked' so to speak. Having a consortium consisting of companies and projects seems like having both a wolf and a sheep in one bag. Besides it's not clear whether the companies mentioned on the la.org members page have any relation to the applications mentioned on the same page. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
Just to say that obviously the consortium is not entirely made up of corporate wolveswho don't know or don't care about freedom (honestly I don't see how one could reach this conclusion looking at the current members' list, but anyway). Compare 4Front vs. ALSA Marek
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 08:08 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote: Just to say that obviously the consortium is not entirely made up of corporate wolveswho don't know or don't care about freedom (honestly I don't see how one could reach this conclusion looking at the current members' list, but anyway). Compare 4Front vs. ALSA Marek I would like to suggest that this discussion be moved to the consortium's public e-mail list. LAD subscribers who think this discussion is important can and should subscribe, and the growing number of LAD subscribers who don't needn't be bothered with it anymore - everybody wins :) |) |)enji
