Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: why is no-one responding are you all just a bunch of &*^%&^%^& wits???

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: why is no-one responding are you all just a bunch of &*^%&^%^& wits???

[ljp]

On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 07:44, Paul Davis wrote:
> >So I've wasted 2+ years of my life and countless dollars continuing down
> >this path.
> 
> Do you know how much of my life and money I've spent "continuing down
> this path"? In return for getting up every day for 3+ years (bar some
> months in the summer) and working my ass off to produce something
> people claimed would take hundreds of man years to create, finding
> 2-300 emails per day in my mail box about audio software, hardware,
> and the rest ... I get this. Its pathetic. Not only that ... I have no
> idea how much longer I can keep working on Ardour right now because
> working on it has come close to exhausting my financial
> resources. What right do you have to complain about "countless
> dollars"?

If I may pipe in here..
Being a developer and a musician/engineer, I am aware of the resource
drain invloved. 

With all due respect, Paul,
If you are interested, I am sure people would pay for binaries of
ardour.I would. I know other musicans that would.I could get more
musicans to. Personally, I have been waiting for it since I first heard
about it. Why not release something? People are waiting! Most open
source projects release binaries throughout their development phase.
Instead of adding cool new features for years on end, why not release
something that musicans can use. That is what it's all about, right? 
Musicians want your software. Linux (community) needs your software.


 
> You have been given access to the inside of the entire development
> process of a major piece of software: something you would never, ever
> have any access to with a commercial company. If you don't like the
> fact that nobody has time to answer your questions because we too
> **DAMN BUSY** trying to get software to the point where non-coders can
> use it with satisfaction and ease, well ...  go get products & support
> from companies that will happily take your money for both of
> them. There are plenty of good ones.
> 



-- 
My cat's a debugger....

Potter, Lorn, "ljp"
core developer / Web Administrator
Project OPIE- the Open Palmtop Integrated Environment
http://opie.handhelds.org | http://www.opie.info (german) |
http://www.opie.us
IRC: irc.freenode.net #opie #opie.de

llornkcor@handhelds.org
llornkcor@helixcommunity.org



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: why is no-one responding are you all just a bunch of &*^%&^%^& wits???

[Paul Davis]

>If you are interested, I am sure people would pay for binaries of
>ardour.I would. I know other musicans that would.I could get more
>musicans to. Personally, I have been waiting for it since I first heard
>about it. Why not release something? 

because i am tired of downloading open source projects that are still
so clearly under development. i am tired of the impression that this
creates. when i get hold of something like freqtweak, which i can
compile or get binaries for, and the thing just works ... that is the
right impression. the wrong impression comes from stupid bugs,
inability to cleanly exit the program (still a core problem with
ardour), and functionality that is obviously necessary and either
missing or incomplete.

				      People are waiting! Most open
>source projects release binaries throughout their development phase.
>Instead of adding cool new features for years on end, why not release
>something that musicans can use. 

that's precisely what i am trying to do. however, my definition of
"something that musicians can use" might be different from yours.

jazz++ has been around for a long time, and is available as a
binary. why isn't it widely loved and used? because it really isn't
very good. i know that i tried to use it many times, and found it,
well, frankly i found it completely awful. 

ardour still has lots of significant bugs and a few design issues that
need addressing before i want the general population judging it. to
release ready-to-run copies now, or even tarballs that would help
people who can't/won't use CVS to try to compile it ... well, all i
think it would do is to increase the number of people who have "been
there, don't want to go back" with respect to the program.

when ardour is in a state where i believe (rightly or wrongly) that a
reasonably typical target user can sit down and just use it without
encountering bugs when recording a typical 12-32 track piece, there
will be binaries.

--p


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com

Re: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: why is no-one responding are you all just a bunch of &*^%&^%^& wits???

[ljp]

On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 09:49, Paul Davis wrote:
> >If you are interested, I am sure people would pay for binaries of
> >ardour.I would. I know other musicans that would.I could get more
> >musicans to. Personally, I have been waiting for it since I first heard
> >about it. Why not release something? 
> 
> because i am tired of downloading open source projects that are still
> so clearly under development. i am tired of the impression that this
> creates. when i get hold of something like freqtweak, which i can
> compile or get binaries for, and the thing just works ... that is the
> right impression. the wrong impression comes from stupid bugs,
> inability to cleanly exit the program (still a core problem with
> ardour), and functionality that is obviously necessary and either
> missing or incomplete.

ahhh, you are a perfectionist! I see your point. Open source software is
always under dev, unless it's not maintained. You _could_ release
'alpha' versions clearly stating that it is alpha condition. 

> 
> 				      People are waiting! Most open
> >source projects release binaries throughout their development phase.
> >Instead of adding cool new features for years on end, why not release
> >something that musicans can use. 
> 
> that's precisely what i am trying to do. however, my definition of
> "something that musicians can use" might be different from yours.

Well, obviously, ardour isn't at the 'release' stage, but perhaps beta
or even alpha. Perhaps someone else with more time, could release a
binary version for you. Pick one or two target dists, and release alpha
binaries or such. You'd certainly get more bug reports. :)
 
> jazz++ has been around for a long time, and is available as a
> binary. why isn't it widely loved and used? because it really isn't
> very good. i know that i tried to use it many times, and found it,
> well, frankly i found it completely awful. 
 
> ardour still has lots of significant bugs and a few design issues that
> need addressing before i want the general population judging it. to
> release ready-to-run copies now, or even tarballs that would help
> people who can't/won't use CVS to try to compile it ... well, all i
> think it would do is to increase the number of people who have "been
> there, don't want to go back" with respect to the program.

Personally, I keep checking back to projects that are in some kind of
beta stage, or too buggy to use and look interesting, to see what things
have changed. Heck, I'll even use software day to day that crashes
constantly, if I think it's useful enough. (mozilla - early stages comes
to mind)

 
> when ardour is in a state where i believe (rightly or wrongly) that a
> reasonably typical target user can sit down and just use it without
> encountering bugs when recording a typical 12-32 track piece, there
> will be binaries.

People are willing now to support you financially now, Paul.Paypal might
be a good idea, if you dont mind begging till ardour is at a point where
you can release to the general public.
 
> --p
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
-- 
My cat's a debugger....

Potter, Lorn, "ljp"
core developer / Web Administrator
Project OPIE- the Open Palmtop Integrated Environment
http://opie.handhelds.org | http://www.opie.info (german) |
http://www.opie.us
IRC: irc.freenode.net #opie #opie.de

llornkcor@handhelds.org
llornkcor@helixcommunity.org



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com

Re: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: why is no-one responding are you all just a bunch of &*^%&^%^& wits???

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:49:08 -0500,
Paul Davis wrote:
> 
> when ardour is in a state where i believe (rightly or wrongly) that a
> reasonably typical target user can sit down and just use it without
> encountering bugs when recording a typical 12-32 track piece, there
> will be binaries.

don't forget that the binary distribution may cause different kind of
problems, too. 

the binary might not run on different distributions, or even on a
different machine with a same distribution, unless you give
all-static-linked binary.  (note that even a binary like netscape 4.x
cannot run properly now with the new glibc because of java.)

and you would likely ignore a bug-report for such, because the only
answer is "it works for me" :)


Takashi		(in a pessmistic atmosphere)


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: why is no-one responding are you all just a bunch of &*^%&^%^& wits???

[Paul Davis]

>don't forget that the binary distribution may cause different kind of
>problems, too. 
>
>the binary might not run on different distributions, or even on a
>different machine with a same distribution, unless you give
>all-static-linked binary.  (note that even a binary like netscape 4.x
>cannot run properly now with the new glibc because of java.)

a 100% statically linked binary will be available, but not
recommended.


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf