danboid wrote:I totally agree with F on your total lack of respect for other devs Jeff
Pfffft... They disrespected me first, but that was before your time, n00b.
danboid wrote:and that if you carry on it will only harm your project. Despite what you might like people to think you've not developed pydaw in some bubble without any outside aid as it obviously depends upon Qt, python, gcc and god knows how many other projects.
ALSA, Jack, sndfile and liblo, but that's pretty much it... but when did I ever have anything bad to say about those other than I'd eventually like to dump Jack and Liblo from my project?
danboid wrote:I hope you don't go slagging these other devs off as much as you to the other (Linux) audio devs
If I wanted to slag them, Linux development would not be the career for me
Besides, what are you suggesting? That Guido Van Rossum would bake secret quirks into the next Python2.7 release to sabotage my project?
I'm sure Guido would have the same stance as me: "Don't like Python? F' off and use another language"
danboid wrote:it does you no favours and the sooner you realise it and stop calling everyone dicks the better.
Hey stupid: I know you just came to slag me and defend your developer buddies interests, and quickly glanced over my post trying to find troll-bait, but maybe you should try re-reading that part and see who I was calling a dick.
danboid wrote: FLOSS flourishes through collaboration and mutual respect but your current attitude will do a fantastic job of keeping other devs (and users) away from using and helping improve pydaw.
No, there's plenty of infighting between projects in the Linux community. I'm doing the most constructive thing of all: instead of trolling the internet about how much the Linux audio ecosystem sucks, I'm making an entirely new Linux audio ecosystem to compete with the existing one. It doesn't get more constructive than that, right?
In less than a year, I've written:
A 16-in-one effects unit
A vast library of DSP, MIDI and general purpose audio framework goodies
Now, your stance is that the current ecosystem is great. If that's the case, they should have no problem squashing my ecosystem like a bug, right? I mean, I'm just one person, I'm sure plenty of them could also write all of that stuff in less than a year, from scratch, in their spare time... They could also just fork my work and make it work with their stuff, but apparently it should be my responsibility to take on that burden whether I want to or not... Right?
danboid wrote:There are plenty of pro musicians who use Renoise and many are signed to labels - there's a whole list of 'em on the renoise site.
Like who? I'm expecting big names, you know how to copy and paste, right? If not, I can provide instructions.
danboid wrote:Granted, if you're not into electronica then I'd suspect many will not appeal to you.
Once again proving that you don't really read anything I post... Otherwise you would have noticed that PyDAW+it's plugins are meant specifically for electronic music.
danboid wrote:However, I suspect Renoise wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is if it didn't have VST support and hence access to a wide range of pro-quality synths and other plugins. Non-insular software is good!
You really want the future versions of Euphoria, don't you?
Reason by Propellerheads has had more big names use it than Renoise, and Reason epitomizes the walled garden approach. Furthermore, Reason isn't even that good(other than it's legendary stability and low CPU usage that comes with the walled garden approach), and plenty still use it, if the plugins and sequencer in Reason were awesome, I suspect it would dominate the entire world.
danboid wrote:Once pydaw has audio support on a par with qtractor or muse and you've wrote a synth that compares well to noisemaker or Aspect - then I'll start taking interest. Until then its fighting with OOM as the premier example of how not to run an open source project.
Were Muse and Qtractor usable just 4 months into their development, let alone half as good as PyDAW already is already? Audio tracks aren't a high priority for me, which is why they aren't there yet... Whenever I do get around to that, I anticipate it will take me a whopping 2 weeks to get them done right, and stable. All I have to do is shoehorn in Euphoria's engine, make a UI, then some LibRubberband or Soundtouch action. Too easy, right? I already did all of the hard work for audio tracks when I wrote Euphoria.
However, I would like ask you, Danboid, not to ever use or ever try any of my software, ever again... My self esteem isn't tied to my total user count, and having to spend time arguing against your half-baked rants is counterproductive towards the development of PyDAW. I don't need or want you
as a user, but I'd be willing to bet you'll pout, then come back and try Euphoria again later when it's vastly improved yet again in an impossibly short time period, then you'll start whining about how I need to make it work with MuseTractor all over again...
However, it is flattering that you all are apparently losing sleep over the possibility of having to compete directly against little old me, you've got me outnumbered 100 to 1