On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Emanuel Rumpf wrote:
>> I wonder if it's true that it is hard to write a LV2 plugin
It depends on where you are coming from. I've certainly heard
complaints about that.
> IMO, the pro- and non-pro nonsense was introduced, in order to sell
Pro/non-pro distinction is perfectly justified by targeting at groups
of people who have different needs, where customization of UI is
likely to be a nightmare for both developers and users (and as such
customization is often overrated).
>> .. it would we very hard to come up with something
True. But it's hard to become larger when there are still so many
problems with even basic things.
>>> I think having good native VST
Let's see. Right here and right now I'm interested in buying Loomer's
Aspect synth, but it comes in native VST for Linux only which isn't
supported by A3 (yes, I know about Qtractor, and no, I don't use it
for reasons too off-topic to mention). Personally, I have no problem
with proprietary APIs used by free apps as long as I can use whatever
I have. For me music is clearly more important than whatever RMS has
to say about freedom.
The question is: how can you ensure a developer that releasing LV2
version is going to have a nice ROI? I see two ways: 1) buying
specifically native VST to cover porting expenses (and get a free LV2
later), and 2) let developers count the cost and team up with other
users to invest into LV2 version. Given the fact that Pianoteq was
developed on Linux in the first place, you probably don't have to
explain to its core team anything. You only have to somehow make sure
ROI happens the way it should.
But that's just talking. Let's have impressive hosts first :)
Linux-audio-user mailing list