Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: J. Liles <malnourite@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>, Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 6:07 pm

--20cf303b39bdf4f58c04cbb852e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

"I'm surprised you didn't mention Luppp, libmapper, or the resurgence of
ZynAddSubFX developement.

Don't be - it is impossible to mention everything :)
But this is why I want to hear what other people say - crowd source
approach ;)

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:04 PM, J. Liles wrote:

>

--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/

--20cf303b39bdf4f58c04cbb852e3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"I'm surprised you didn't mention Luppp, libmapper, or the res=
urgence of ZynAddSubFX developement.Don't be - it is impossible=
to mention everything :)But this is why I want to hear what other peop=
le say - crowd source approach ;)
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:04 PM, J. Liles <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><malnourite@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 a=
t 1:24 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@gmail.com> wro=
te:

Hey fellas!Would like to present an article I've written. Mostl=
y wrote it to start a conversation and hear what others have to say on the =
subject.http:/=
/www.louigiverona.ru/?page=3Dprojects&s=3Dwritings&t=3Dlinux&a=
=3Dlinux_progress

You can comment here or on my textboard (which does not require registr=
ation).Seems like a pretty negative outlook overall. Progress has defi=
nitely been slower than many of us would like, but that's understandabl=
e considering that most Linux Audio programs are maintained by single devel=
opers (with lots of other projects) or small groups. I'm surprised you =
didn't mention Luppp, libmapper, or the resurgence of ZynAddSubFX devel=
opement. I think the KXStudio project represents a *huge* amount of progres=
s as far as integration and user experience goes.

My personal frustration with Linux Audio is mainly focused on the seeml=
ingly iron-clad (but flawed) JACK API. We've needed the ability to rena=
me clients and have ports with arbitrary event payloads (to allow MIDI, OSC=
, or whatever other streams to be managed via the JACK connection graph and=
frame clock) for years. And, even though many proposals have been made and=
patches submitted, it doesn't look like the JACK API is ever going to =
be improved--which doesn't speak well at all for the future of modular =
audio on Linux (such improvements are unnecessary for monolithic applicatio=
ns such as Ardour since they duplicate all this functionality internally) .=
If an API is going to be fixed and rigid, it must also be extensible (like=
LV2).

Still, I remain committed to improving Linux Audio and generally optimi=
stic about the future.
-- Louigi Veronahttp://www.louigiverona.ru/

--20cf303b39bdf4f58c04cbb852e3--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Oct 10, 8:24 am)
Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, Dominique Michel, (Thu Oct 11, 4:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, (Wed Oct 10, 8:40 pm)
Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Oct 10, 6:07 pm)