Re: [LAD] Just an information about the state of affairs - Re: forking (was Re: Aeolus)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Fons Adriaensen <fons@...>
Cc: <lmuse-developer@...>, linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Monday, September 23, 2013 - 5:44 pm

--047d7b6d94a0a8a9ca04e710917e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 02:18:58AM -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:

I have sketched out a rough plan for Ardour3-as-LV2 plugin, actually. I can
see a few cases where it could be useful.

>

Fons, with all due respect, I think you're playing analogy card a bit too
strongly here. I have physical synths here and software synths. The latter
are not like the former, and they don't need to be. One way in which they
are different is there is no inherent reason why they have to be run in a
separate process from the thing that is sending them control data.

There are reasons why a developer or a user might PREFER to have their
synthesis taking place in its own process, and there are reasons why they
might prefer it to be in a different process. Insisting that there is no
reason for doing the single-process case is a bit stubborn - I mean, look I
know that there is no way to do this with a hardware synth, but one of the
reasons we write software is precisely because it isn't hardware.

I think you should stick with "I have absolutely no intention of ever
releasing Aeolus as a plugin", and not try to provide a reason for it.

--p

--047d7b6d94a0a8a9ca04e710917e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@linuxaud=
io.org
> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 02=
:18:58AM -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:

That is not going to happen. There is no reason why Aeolus should be<=
br>
a plugin, functionally it is perfectly usable on its own and it doesn't=

need anything hosting it. You could as well ask for Ardour3 as a plugin.I have sketched out a rough plan for Ardo=
ur3-as-LV2 plugin, actually. I can see a few cases where it could be useful=
.
=A0

If you want to use Aeolus to render your scores, all you need to do
is send the midi data. I assume that musescore can send midi to
external (hardware) synths ? Then it can do the same with Aeolus.Fons, with all due respect, I think you're p=
laying analogy card a bit too strongly here. I have physical synths here an=
d software synths. The latter are not like the former, and they don't n=
eed to be. One way in which they are different is there is no inherent reas=
on why they have to be run in a separate process from the thing that is sen=
ding them control data.
There are reasons why a developer or a user might PREFER to =
have their synthesis taking place in its own process, and there are reasons=
why they might prefer it to be in a different process. Insisting that ther=
e is no reason for doing the single-process case is a bit stubborn - I mean=
, look I know that there is no way to do this with a hardware synth, but on=
e of the reasons we write software is precisely because it isn't hardwa=
re.
I think you should stick with "I have absolutely no intentio=
n of ever releasing Aeolus as a plugin", and not try to provide a reas=
on for it. --p

--047d7b6d94a0a8a9ca04e710917e--

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

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAD] Aeolus, geoff, (Wed Sep 18, 9:56 pm)
[LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), IOhannes m zmoelnig, (Thu Sep 19, 3:35 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Arnold Krille, (Thu Sep 19, 11:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Paul Davis, (Thu Sep 19, 11:39 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), IOhannes m zmölnig, (Fri Sep 20, 10:24 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Dan Muresan, (Fri Sep 20, 12:25 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Harry van Haaren, (Fri Sep 20, 12:38 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Harry van Haaren, (Fri Sep 20, 12:39 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), R. Mattes, (Thu Sep 19, 4:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Sep 19, 9:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Felix Homann, (Fri Sep 20, 7:52 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Sep 20, 7:57 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Felix Homann, (Fri Sep 20, 8:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Sep 20, 8:24 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), J. Liles, (Fri Sep 20, 8:50 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Sep 21, 5:52 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), John Rigg, (Sat Sep 21, 9:30 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Sep 21, 9:52 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), John Rigg, (Sat Sep 21, 10:13 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), hermann meyer, (Sat Sep 21, 10:02 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Sep 20, 9:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Sep 21, 6:00 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), hermann meyer, (Sat Sep 21, 6:10 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Felix Homann, (Sat Sep 21, 6:43 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), hermann meyer, (Sat Sep 21, 6:59 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Felix Homann, (Sat Sep 21, 7:20 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Sep 21, 6:40 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), hermann meyer, (Sat Sep 21, 6:56 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Felix Homann, (Fri Sep 20, 10:23 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Sep 21, 5:40 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Dan Muresan, (Sat Sep 21, 6:47 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), J. Liles, (Fri Sep 20, 10:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Sep 20, 10:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Dan Muresan, (Sat Sep 21, 11:42 am)
Re: [LAD] Just an information about the state of affairs - R..., Paul Davis, (Mon Sep 23, 5:44 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Felix Homann, (Fri Sep 20, 8:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Gordon JC Pearce, (Fri Sep 20, 9:36 am)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), J. Liles, (Fri Sep 20, 4:04 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Sep 20, 4:18 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), J. Liles, (Fri Sep 20, 4:30 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Sep 20, 7:35 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Sep 20, 4:42 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), J. Liles, (Thu Sep 19, 9:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fred Gleason, (Thu Sep 19, 9:46 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Nils Gey, (Thu Sep 19, 3:49 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Sep 19, 3:45 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), IOhannes m zmoelnig, (Thu Sep 19, 3:57 pm)
Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus), IOhannes m zmölnig, (Thu Sep 19, 8:56 pm)