To clearify:
I got a pissed off with the latest changes of defaults in libpthread of
my favorite distro.
Pouring it all down in jack would mean that everything breaks or nothing
breaks, ie: Detectable!
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 04:29 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> Wouldn't it be natural to have m
Wouldn't it be natural to have midi (triggers,u-nameit) to come along
with the call from jack? One more argument in the call wouldn't break
anything in legacy-applications.
My rationale being that the midi-aware application would like to know
the latest news of the world (and adjust), before doing
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:02:43AM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:03 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
>
> > If I may chime in here... I urge all Linux audio developers to read the
> > DSSI spec, it's well-written and directly addresses some of LADSPA's
> > shortcomings. After
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:03 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
> If I may chime in here... I urge all Linux audio developers to read the
> DSSI spec, it's well-written and directly addresses some of LADSPA's
> shortcomings. After working with VSTi plugins for a while I've begun to
> see the need for s
Stefan Turner wrote:
I will definitely look into using DSSI, looks like it
could be good once as supported as LADSPA is (I'd
never even heard of it before your post, although
that's probably just me). Is it intended as an
eventual LADSPA replacement? I never really saw the
need to divide plugins in
