On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 11:17, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Suppose we have say 6 different applications (DAW, drummachine, sampler,
you name it)that perfecly compete with proprietary world. Does *that*
take the freedom of choice?
Does encouraging of toolkits(we've got two major ones) take your
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 13:08, Marek Peteraj wrote:
There are developers were born to design great technologies and make
them better. And there are developers or even non-developers which were
born to make design UIs which people would love to use.
Paul falls into the first category. But i
Paul falls into the first category. But i have a strong feeling that he
thinks he falls into both categories.
He makes better UIs than anything I've ever seen that came from you!
Why don't you get involved with ardour and help with whatever problems
you see in the UI? Well?
Posting useless
On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 11:49, Paul Davis wrote:
Paul falls into the first category. But i have a strong feeling that he
thinks he falls into both categories.
He makes better UIs than anything I've ever seen that came from you!
Why don't you get involved with ardour and help with whatever
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:42:14 +0200, Tim Orford wrote:
I did a gig last year, where I used a midi floor controller that ran shell
scripts which (un)made connections in a jack graph (and some other
stuff). I'd like to know what other OSs let you do that :)
ok, tell us what you were
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:08:57PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 06:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. I never thought of the idea of having MIDI run vertically. I
think it might just confuse matters, but perhaps not. Athough I suppose
it does paralell control/audio
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:05:36 +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
While choice is in fact a reason for me to use Linux, there's the problem
that choice is mostly limited to incomplete/patchwork solutions (but in the
proprietary software world there are similiar and some other problems).
Right,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:05:36AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
My take on this, I hope I can bring this discussion to a friendlier level:
I have no intention to be unfriendly. And most people who know me would
say I'm in fact a gentle person... :-)
Linux would 'need' an unified gui (look
On Friday 11 Jun 2004 11:39 am, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
There seems to be a belief that computers and software would
eleminate the need for education and training, that sitting at a
DAW turns you instantly into a sound engineer, and clicking the
mouse on soft synth makes you a qualified
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Friday 11 Jun 2004 11:39 am, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
There seems to be a belief that computers and software would
eleminate the need for education and training, that sitting at a
DAW turns you instantly into a sound
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:17:24AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
combination of AMS, SSM, jack-rack and tapiir (I think). I wanted to
change the routing on the fly.
Obviously it /can/ be done in windows (turing complete), but i bet it
would have been a hell of a lot harder.
this should be a
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 03:42, Tim Orford wrote:
i dont mean to be aggressive, i'm just really intrigued to
know how people get any music done. There is never any talk on
this list or LAU about real software usage or workflows etc.
Most of that talk is on ardour-dev. Ask Ron Parker
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:59:41PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
I didn't. What I said was that those who complain because things
do no look as they are used to, are in general the same people that
just do not master the application domain itself. Those that do
will just get on with the
Paul:
paul returns from a week away
% f +gtk-in
% rmm cur-last
% f +gtkmm-in
% rmm cur-last
% f +new
% rmm `pick -from wine-devel`
% rmm `pick -from xdg-list`
and then i can put all those commands in script and next time just do:
% clean-mail
that's what i call a mail client.
[Paul Davis]
the fact that some systems can do live repatching without xruns is
either good luck, or a function of them using very lightweight objects
that don't directly reference expensive resources.
it can be done no matter the weight of the resources involved if the
resource handling
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:37:09AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
you cannot modify the graph in JACK while the graph is being used to
process audio. you do not know how long the graph modification will
take if you try to do it (for example) right after you're done with
one process cycle. the only
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:57:33PM +0200, Tim Orford wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:17:24AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
combination of AMS, SSM, jack-rack and tapiir (I think). I wanted to
change the routing on the fly.
Obviously it /can/ be done in windows (turing complete), but i bet
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:09, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:59:41PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
I didn't. What I said was that those who complain because things
do no look as they are used to, are in general the same people that
just do not master the application
moreover, iirc, the design of jackd makes no consideration for
'live' routing changes. At least on my system, changing the graph
results in an xrun.
last time i plug an analog signal into an analog patchbay, there was a
click.
you cannot modify the graph in JACK while the graph is being used to
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:37:09AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
you cannot modify the graph in JACK while the graph is being used to
process audio. you do not know how long the graph modification will
take if you try to do it (for example) right after you're done with
one process cycle. the only
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:15:24AM -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
Also, being one of those bedroom hackers, I just want to point out that
I've been a professional programmer for 26 years. I've done mostly
scientific graphical editing and data structures programming, but also
real-time data
Alfons Adriaensen:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:24:59PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Tim Hockin:
I know Linux people love to claim how choice is our strength, but I think
it's bunk. Linux needs a single GUI environment that has a lot of deep
flexibility
Yes! I completely
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
And this is exactly what explains the clutter in ardour UI.
Marek, your comments on the logic and consistency of the Ardour
GUI were IMHO justifed, and I'm probably not the only one who
appreciated your contribution in that case.
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 08:39, Steve Harris wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:15:24AM -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
Also, being one of those bedroom hackers, I just want to point out that
I've been a professional programmer for 26 years. I've done mostly
scientific graphical editing and data
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So you call not removing disturbing non-efficient and stupid UI designs
which make your life harder and all that -- fallacy and dumbing-down??
No, I never said such a thing.
--
FA
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:15:24AM -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
I am recording/mixing originals alone and with my band(s) using Ardour,
effects from LADSPA (SWH and TAP for the most part), mastering with
JAMin, final clip with Audacity, and burning CDs with XCDRoast. I don't
do MIDI or
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:52, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Alfons Adriaensen:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:24:59PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
Tim Hockin:
I know Linux people love to claim how choice is our strength, but I think
it's bunk. Linux needs a single GUI
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:03, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
And this is exactly what explains the clutter in ardour UI.
Marek, your comments on the logic and consistency of the Ardour
GUI were IMHO justifed, and I'm probably not the
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:08, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So you call not removing disturbing non-efficient and stupid UI designs
which make your life harder and all that -- fallacy and dumbing-down??
No, I never said such a
Steve Harris wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:15:24AM -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
The average age of linux audio hackers does seem to be unusually high. No
idea why. Maybe you get to a certain age before the insanity kicks in ;)
- Steve, beginner with only 17 years programming experience
There is at
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 09:03, Tim Orford wrote:
yeh you guys are lucky, not only do you get to work with real
instruments but your software requirements are much more easily satisfied:-)
Yeah, it is much easier than dealing with MIDI and synths. I get a
headache just thinking about
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:25:28PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:03, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
And this is exactly what explains the clutter in ardour UI.
Marek, your comments on the logic and
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:31:45PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:08, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So you call not removing disturbing non-efficient and stupid UI designs
which make your life harder and
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:33, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:25:28PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:03, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
And this is exactly what explains the clutter in
[...]
Sorry Fons, but define acceptable! Please!
I will define as non-acceptable the implication:
Paul uses a text based mail client
=
this explains why his GUI designs are cluttered.
It would be acceptable and in this context even funny with a :-),
but I didn't see that.
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:58, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:31:45PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 16:08, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
So you call not removing disturbing non-efficient
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:08:06PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Are you seriously sure? We're in the marketing hype thread which i've
started. ;)
It's not all about you, even if you started it :-)
Seriously now, I see your point, and mutatis mutandis I will
even agree with it. But I am not as
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 18:04, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
[...]
Sorry Fons, but define acceptable! Please!
I will define as non-acceptable the implication:
Paul uses a text based mail client
=
this explains why his GUI designs are cluttered.
It would be acceptable and in
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 17:19, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:08:06PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Are you seriously sure? We're in the marketing hype thread which i've
started. ;)
It's not all about you, even if you started it :-)
Seriously now, I see your point,
that the only people who work on open source projects are kids in
college and weekend warriors? The things that I don't understand (like
DSP :) are covered by other bedroom hackers like Paul Davis, Steve
Harris, Jack O'Quin, Taybin Rutkin, Jesse Chappell, Andrew Morton, Linus
Torvalds...
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:41:10 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
If you can't code, and can't help out in more concrete ways (testing and
documentation etc.), but still want to help, by all means go out there
and promote, organize, help out in other ways, that's great. But don't
expect
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:10:35 -0700, Michael Ost wrote:
I'm with a company trying to make money off of linux audio. While I
enjoy the technical/academic discursion (though lots get the
subject-line only review! %), I'd like to think this list could support
those who mix the market with
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Just as if i said: There something magical about the sound of pipe
organs. No wonder they're called the kings of all musical instruments.
We have tried to model one such pipe organ as close as possible so that
you can enjoy
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:27:03AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:41:10 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
Heck, I write programs I don't even release because I'm too lazy (ie
this: http://chat.carleton.ca/~drobilla/patchbay.png).. PR isn't even on
the radar screen.
On 09 Jun 2004 21:10 , Michael Ost [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
I don't think I could possibly care less who uses 'linux audio'. I
don't really think anyone else here should either - we should be aiming
to build the best system possible, period.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:10, Michael Ost wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
I don't think I could possibly care less who uses 'linux audio'. I
don't really think anyone else here should either - we should be aiming
to build the best system possible, period. Not
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 02:27, Steve Harris wrote:
If John Q. Hacker cared about PR, he wouldn't be that much of a hacker
would he? :)
Heh. Lazyness, Imapatience and Hubris.
Guilty as charged. More like riled up by Marek and spouting his mouth
off though. :)
Heck, I write programs I
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 06:39, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:10, Michael Ost wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
I don't think I could possibly care less who uses 'linux audio'. I
don't really think anyone else here should either - we should be aiming
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 06:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:27:03AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:41:10 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
Heck, I write programs I don't even release because I'm too lazy (ie
this:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 07:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09 Jun 2004 21:10 , Michael Ost [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
I don't think I could possibly care less who uses 'linux audio'. I
don't really think anyone else here should either - we
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 10:54, Michael Ost wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 06:39, Dave Robillard wrote:
That nice you think I should want proprietary software to get developed
for linux. Well, I don't. IMHO that amounts to throwing away the
single advantage we have, which sounds pretty stupid
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:22:55PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
That was exactly Dave's point. Marek wants some kind of we thing going on.
He wants us all to march off in solidarity in the direction he chooses and it
just doesn't work that way. You want to make money, I don't care,
Marek Peteraj:
Personally speaking, as a free software developer I don't care if my
programs are deemed as sucessful, they work for me, and handful of other
people - this makes me happy :)
I'd like to see what other developers of the most popular linux audio
projects think. Because if
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:40:33PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
Not that I wasn't being truthful though - I really don't want
proprietary software anywhere around here (freedom's pretty much all we
have), but that's just one man's opinion, take it or leave it.
I'm happy to have the freedom to
And no, linux audio is definitely not perfectly unusable for me.
Quite the contrary; pd, supercollider, snd, ladspa, alsa, jack and the
very low-latish kernel make it to be a very usable platform for creative
work you can't do in other OS's.
i would seriously be interested to know what those
Tim Hockin:
I know Linux people love to claim how choice is our strength, but I think
it's bunk. Linux needs a single GUI environment that has a lot of deep
flexibility
Yes! I completely agree with this.
(and I don't mean Scheme config files :)
Oh...
:)
--
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:40:33PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
Not that I wasn't being truthful though - I really don't want
proprietary software anywhere around here (freedom's pretty much all we
have), but that's just one man's opinion, take it or leave it.
I'm happy to have the freedom to
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:26:44PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
I'm happy to have the freedom to know what my OS is *really* doing. I'd
buy Cubase for Linux.
you don't care as much about the freedom to know what your DAW is
*really* doing? if you're a musician or an audio engineer, you will be
Hallo,
Marek Peteraj hat gesagt: // Marek Peteraj wrote:
In case anybody here is using evolution to post on lad.
Since 1.2 it was the most stable and perfect application i've ever seen.
Evolution seems to have one big problem: It seems to make it hard to
edit and shorten replies, or what's
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:15:56 +0200, Tim Orford wrote:
And no, linux audio is definitely not perfectly unusable for me.
Quite the contrary; pd, supercollider, snd, ladspa, alsa, jack and the
very low-latish kernel make it to be a very usable platform for creative
work you can't do in
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:26:54 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Marek Peteraj hat gesagt: // Marek Peteraj wrote:
In case anybody here is using evolution to post on lad.
Since 1.2 it was the most stable and perfect application i've ever seen.
Evolution seems to have one big
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:22:55 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
That said, the existance of the list should be more well-known. There's
far too much audio stuff going on that isn't even aware of LAD, which
can't be good.
Er, actually thats not neccesarily true. Some people prefer to actually
Hallo,
Steve Harris hat gesagt: // Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:26:54 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Better use Mutt, it sucks less.
In all seriousness, all the non elm/mutt apps I've used dont let me go
though my mail quickly enough. The ability to switch inboxes, delete
Hallo,
Steve Harris hat gesagt: // Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:26:54 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Better use Mutt, it sucks less.
In all seriousness, all the non elm/mutt apps I've used dont let me go
though my mail quickly enough. The ability to switch inboxes, delete
I couldn't resist.
snip
a UI that is designed
by people who understand how something works and how it is
used, rather than by the marketing department.
snip
marketing, which has been defined
as 'the art of disturbing rational decision making'.
Let me give you a perfect example.
The
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:11, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What linux audio offers is
technology. No comfort at all. Right now it's all just academic
software.
This, and the lack of marketing departments is exactly why I am here.
I don't want to see linux apps turning into slickly hyped lifestyle
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:11, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What linux audio offers is
technology. No comfort at all. Right now it's all just academic
software.
This, and the lack of marketing departments is exactly why I am here.
I don't want
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more conferences per year, one of them being
huge(guadec) with sponsors, larger companies involved, and *most* of
*all* they're
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 22:37, Dan Hollis wrote:
i think its possible to get your point across without being a dick.
sadly, you didn't do it.
I always don't, you should already know that, i'm known for that ;)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:26:07 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I don't want to see linux apps turning into slickly hyped lifestyle
products like the rest of the music software business. We should push
the advantages we have,
What advantages? Free as in beer?
Free as in beer is good. Not
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 23:18, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:26:07 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I don't want to see linux apps turning into slickly hyped lifestyle
products like the rest of the music software business. We should push
the advantages we have,
What
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 06:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:11, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What linux audio offers is
technology. No comfort at all. Right now it's all just academic
software.
This, and the lack of marketing departments is exactly why I am here.
I don't want
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
But you guys *are* following proprietary software in general. Ardour is
a DAW just like cubase is, while SSM resembles reaktor in its
philosophy. LADSPAs are plugins like VSTs are, etc etc etc. There's
nothing which is perfectly original.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:07, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
But you guys *are* following proprietary software in general. Ardour is
a DAW just like cubase is, while SSM resembles reaktor in its
philosophy. LADSPAs are plugins like VSTs are, etc etc
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
Personally speaking, as a free software developer I don't care if my
programs are deemed as sucessful, they work for me, and handful of other
people - this makes me happy :)
I'd like to
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 19:27, Marek Peteraj wrote:
If you want to organize something go ahead and organize it, but
please don't tell me that I have to conform to some consumer driven
vision of the great commercial future of Linux Audio.
Sorry to criticize still, but you're participating
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:40:00AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Good. I /like/ the current (lack of) linux audio community. Its not like
we're one homogenous organisation. Were just a bunch of people who hack
linux audio systems. Its great :)
The only real connection we have is that were
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:24, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
Personally speaking, as a free software developer I don't care if my
programs are deemed as sucessful, they work for me,
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:34, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 19:27, Marek Peteraj wrote:
If you want to organize something go ahead and organize it, but
please don't tell me that I have to conform to some consumer driven
vision of the great commercial future of Linux Audio.
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 02:27, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:07, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
But you guys *are* following proprietary software in general. Ardour is
a DAW just like cubase is, while SSM resembles reaktor in its
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 16:11, Marek Peteraj wrote:
What you guys blatantly underestimate is that in order to bring your
apps to users (= having success, sorry ;) it doesn't suffice if you're a
developer. You have to be a good manager, have a
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:08, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Most probably you will find out (when/if other developers care to speak
out) that this view is shared by many, if not all, developers, and not
just in the audio world. Great projects in the open source community
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:08, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:50, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:24, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:19, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:08, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Most probably you will find out (when/if other developers care to speak
out) that this view is shared by many, if not all, developers, and not
just in the audio world.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more conferences per year, one of them being
huge(guadec) with
Simple logic has it that you just can't do a perfect app if your
motivation isn't 'to do it for lots of users'.
You guys stated that it's just your hobby and your doing that mostly for
yourself and the other devs that did other apps perhaps if somebody
wants to give it a go. I'm fine with that.
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more conferences per year, one of them being
huge(guadec) with sponsors, larger
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:11, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:24, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
Personally speaking, as a free software developer I don't care if my
programs are deemed as sucessful, they
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 01:40, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I've never seen such inapt community btw, which is totally ignorant in
organizing itself. See the gnome community which started to exist the
same year. They have more conferences per year,
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:11:43AM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
from SuSE 8.2 to 9.0. In the new distro, most of the Gnome apps that
I loved before suddenly seemed to be dumbed down to the point I really
started to dislike them, and I just removed them form my system.
Agree completely. It
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:50, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:24, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:26, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:17, Dave Griffiths wrote:
Personally speaking, as a free software developer I don't care if my
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 20:54, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Moreover, i think that opensource has become more than just hacking
around with friends over the years.
I think that there's a real chance to make this a better world. Which
can sound as cliche, but at least it would legalize the software in
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:43, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Simple logic has it that you just can't do a perfect app if your
motivation isn't 'to do it for lots of users'.
You guys stated that it's just your hobby and your doing that mostly for
yourself and the other devs that did other apps perhaps
At Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:40:44 -0400,
Dave Robillard wrote:
If you want a plug-in-and-drool computer, you're not running the
right OS.
/me scratches head
if (plugin_and_drool == JUST_WORKS)
buy (plugin_and_drool);
Point being, just because something is hard to use doesn't mean it is
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:56, Dave Robillard wrote:
I don't think I could possibly care less who uses 'linux audio'. I
don't really think anyone else here should either - we should be aiming
to build the best system possible, period. Not saying look! popular
software the people pay money for
96 matches
Mail list logo
