Re: [LMMS-devel] New joining member

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:20 PM, digixznn . wrote: > @Tres, > > And the ZynAddSubFX embedded/native DDL, is it VST2.3, 2.4 or higher? > First, when you speak of VST2.3 and VST2.4, I assume you are referring to the Steinberg versioning? We don't use Steinberg headers, but we do support 64-bit

Re: [LMMS-devel] New joining member

@Carl, Unfortunately ASIO is proprietary and cannot be included in our codebase. If you want to use ASIO, some have had success using a portaudio DLL borrowed from scilabs. More about that here: https://lmms.io/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=604 - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at

[LMMS-devel] New joining member

Hi everyone, I just became aware of your work and installed it on WIN764Pro and was wondering if ASIO support is expected in the near future. I am looking for [slightly] customizing a DAW for my needs. Of course, if my modifs are in your interest, all the best. Nice work. Regards, Carl

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

As far as I'm concerned, bug #1198 is either fixed, never existed, or not related to stable-1.1. Several have tried to reproduce on several occasions without anything that I would consider conclusive. So, I'll ask, please chime in if you can help us repr

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

> > I would say "we should be so lucky"! Yeah, it sounds rather romantic to envision tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros to the project's disposal, but it's quite the opposite actually. Unless we have an immediate objective for such money, we'd be in a very difficult

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

On 10 November 2014 18:00, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > We have to be careful too... when the FOSS community sees we are doing a > crowdfunding, we'll likely get inundated with tens or hundreds of thousands > of dollars in donations when all we really want is enough for a single > developer for a sm

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

On 11/10/2014 09:00 PM, Brian Millar wrote: > All I was saying was that it is the traditional hacker spirit to work > on things purely for fun and because you want to without needing to be > asked or offered a contibution fee, that's all. Well, if you can gather us a bunch of those hackers, with e

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

>"Then you follow some very unorthodox definition of Free Software. Free >software is about free as in freedom, not free as in beer. RMS himself has >stated he has nothing against charging money for free software. FWIW." I'm fully aware of the meaning of Free Software and I've met RMS in person

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

On 11/10/2014 08:26 PM, Brian Millar wrote: > >"So I'm thinking this could be a good thing if we could get a paid > developer who knows RT-audio coding on board in time for the big 2.0 > effort." > > I know many people will disagree with me but I feel like this is > something that really goes again

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

> > > I know many people will disagree with me but I feel like this is > something that really goes against the FOSS mentality. I think Free > Software is about more than features and I think the fact that everyone who > currently works on LMMS do so because they want to and not because they are >

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

>"So I'm thinking this could be a good thing if we could get a paid developer >who knows RT-audio coding on board in time for the big 2.0 effort." I know many people will disagree with me but I feel like this is something that really goes against the FOSS mentality. I think Free Software is abou

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

On 11/10/2014 08:00 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > We have to be careful too... when the FOSS community sees we are doing > a crowdfunding, we'll likely get inundated with tens or hundreds of > thousands of dollars in donations when all we really want is enough > for a single developer for a small a

Re: [LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

We have to be careful too... when the FOSS community sees we are doing a crowdfunding, we'll likely get inundated with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations when all we really want is enough for a single developer for a small amount of time. This kickstarter thing isn't something t

[LMMS-devel] About the "paid developer" idea...

So I'm thinking this could be a good thing if we could get a paid developer who knows RT-audio coding on board in time for the big 2.0 effort. I talked recently with HarryHaaren who said he could possibly be available to work as a paid developer for LMMS. This would be most welcome and would help

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS Memory Manager

On 11/10/2014 01:17 AM, Vesa wrote: > Now the thing to do would be to go through the commits in the memmgr > branch one by one, and find out if there's a clear spot where the CPU > usage increases... To checkout individual commits, you can type git checkout /commitHash /The hashes for the first 5

Re: [LMMS-devel] Going forward: LMMS 2.0

More 2.0 ideas: Limit the rendering options somewhat. I'm thinking: maximum period size = 1024 frames maximum sample rate: 96khz (instead of 192khz now) Reason: sometimes cutting down features (especially features that are extremely niche and have very little real world usage value) is the best

Re: [LMMS-devel] Going forward: LMMS 2.0

On 11/10/2014 11:34 AM, Raine M. Ekman wrote: > If there are cores sitting around just twiddling their bits waiting > for something to process, the "one job per note" model won't run out > of CPU when the instrument has too much processing to do. It evens out > the peak demand in busy parts

Re: [LMMS-devel] Going forward: LMMS 2.0

Hey guys, This is from an IRC user who is specialized in audio software development. These are his thoughts on the roadmap for 2.0 [11:17:20] re LMMS 2.0; cool, that thread definitly needs to be summarized into the Wiki, spent 5 mins reading iterations of "the plan", and now its all fuzzy in my

Re: [LMMS-devel] Going forward: LMMS 2.0

Quoting Vesa : > On 11/07/2014 12:56 PM, Raine M. Ekman wrote: > The current situation isn't exactly "one thread per note" either, it's > one threadable job per note, one threadable job per audioport, and one > job per mixer channel. All my idea does is basically cutting down on the > amount of jo