On 05/28/2012 12:52 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
LV2 may suffer from those issues, all hard to avoid for a free software
project that moved slow at times, due to a lack of total qualified
If nobody takes control, it's yucky anarchism. If someone does step up,
he becomes a "dictator" and there will be people who call him a fool for
taking choices different from those they would have taken, but didn't
and likely won't.
It's like you are asking again and again: "David and Co, why didn't you
just publish a complete specification at once, one all important plugin
and host authors would agree with, magically. As you did not do this,
why don't you throw away what you have to do it now?"
"Oh, and David, why don't you at least mention all the negatives,
every-time you mention the project that your investing so many hours
(weeks, months ...) in?"
As I understand it, what you are insisting on would require a change to
the core of LV2 and invalidate everything out there. Which would lead to
deprecation and outdated documentation on a much larger scale. All that
to gain something the creators of several other standards apparently
didn't consider important or at all.
I think it is the impression that you keep measuring LV2 against an
hypothetic solution that irritates not just David. Especially if it
sounds like that hypothetic solution has to somehow appear at once,
without the friction of experiments and visible social interaction. "LV2
Creators, why aren't you a company and invest a few man-years , working
in secret, to then publish a *complete* spec and reference
implementation at once?"
It would be nice, if you could limit your further input in LV2 matters,
if any, to things that LV2 developers can act on, realistically.
thorwil's design for free software:
Linux-audio-dev mailing list