linuxaudio.org

On 6/13/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen  wrote:

quoted text
> "Tim Howard":

> >

> > On 6/13/07, lra4691@rit.edu  wrote:

> >> Not to bash Ardour, but if the interface of Traverso is as superior as

> >> it seems, perhaps Ardour developers could learn a bit. I believe

> >> Ardour dev's should be focusing on improving the interface's

> >> responsiveness before adding new features, but everyone seems to be

> >> pushing for MIDI in the next release ;p

> >

> > I suppose it depends on the goal, really.  At first glance, Traverso

> > seems to be aimed more towards an audience of home users, with the

> > emphasis being on simplicity and an intuitive interface.  Ardour is

> > intended for serious (i.e. professional) audio work, and therefore has

> > a correspondingly more complex interface.

> >

>

> Since you haven't looked at it more than a "glance", and therefore don't

> know anything to be able to say anything either, I wonder what your agenda

> is. But it seems like your agenda is to defend Ardour, no matter what.

> In case that is true, why?

I haven't been on the Linux Audio scene long enough to develop much of

an agenda of any kind.  I guess my reasoning is kind of based on the

following flow of logic, if you can call it that...
1.  Ardour is by far the most popular professional-grade Linux DAW

2.  Ardour is open source, with many contributing developers

3.  Unless a different user base is targeted (and thus, different

features) it would seem pointless to recreate the wheel, but would

benefit many to further enhance it

4.  Traverso's website seems to be aimed more at home users (just my

gut feeling)
>

quoted text
> Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not

> about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried

> traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor).

>

Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
> And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't

quoted text
> think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but

> it would have been even greater if all the developers on ardour spent all

> of their time exclusively working on making ardour's user interface more

> efficient to use. Traverso is an excellent program to look at to improve

> the situation.

>

> [1]

> http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/2007-March/00408...

>

Of course Ardour can be improved by looking at other DAWs and seeing

what works and what doesn't.  I have read through this post and agree

with most of your suggestions.  A number of them have been implemented

in Ardour2.
But I'm a little confused why you would say you have "a small agenda

too, against Ardour."  Submitting feature requests and reporting bugs

(as you have) is very constructive and helpful to further development.

 So I wouldn't view that as having an agenda against Ardour.
-TimH