On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 19:48 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
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.
"I don't care about portability" == "Nobody cares about my software".
Linux-audio-dev mailing list