LinuxMusicians

nilshi wrote:And yet another thread derailed.

Actually, we're good. You're welcome to join into the conversation but I'll pass on your suggestion to put a halt to discussing something so important. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread and nobody should be telling people to shutdown a conversation. If you have nothing positive to add, there are lots and lots of other threads on this forum you'll probably enjoy more.

Saying "we" is a bit unfair IMO. There is a history of conversations on LM getting off the original topic through some aside or subtopic becoming the main point of comments. Some people get frustrated by this and try to communicate or make requests about it. That and the BSD vs GPL / Free vs free thing has been ongoing for a few decades now, so it's like a supertrope. This specific LM subforum is about software. I value debate and feedback on the ambiguity I created by trying to shave repetition of the the characters "ware" from my row title, but it could be argued that there are better places for chat on the bigger picture. A suggestion could be to search for an older post with a related topic and bump that (and make sure the points you wish to make hasn't been made or responded to earlier).

And what makes a forum any different than real life? When it comes to good manners, do you always feel so "entitled" to jump into a group and tell them to talk about what YOU want to talk about when the conversation evolves into something you're just not interested in? Probably not..... in real life, that would be obnoxious and rude. If you don't like where the conversation goes, you are free to remove yourself from it as well as jump back in should it take another turn that's more to your liking. Jumping up on a podium and telling everyone what they can and can not discuss is just not something that would get you very far in life. Just because you're in a virtual room, does not mean basic manners go out the window.

windowsrefund wrote:And what makes a forum any different than real life? When it comes to good manners, do you always feel so "entitled" to jump into a group and tell them to talk about what YOU want to talk about when the conversation evolves into something you're just not interested in? Probably not..... in real life, that would be obnoxious and rude.

This argument goes 2 ways, of course. People who steer every conversation towards their favorite rant topic in real life are obnoxious as well. And since you can avoid such people in real life but not so much on forums like these, I would argue it is even more bad form online.

In this thread it didn't seem too bad to me (yet?). I could split the topic in 2 if that helps, though.

raboof wrote: This argument goes 2 ways, of course. People who steer every conversation towards their favorite rant topic in real life are obnoxious as well. And since you can avoid such people in real life but not so much on forums like these, I would argue it is even more bad form online.

In forum world you can also avoid some people if you want. Add user to foe-list, and won't see posts of that person. Haven't tried here, but I suppose it works.

tavasti wrote:

raboof wrote:This argument goes 2 ways, of course. People who steer every conversation towards their favorite rant topic in real life are obnoxious as well. And since you can avoid such people in real life but not so much on forums like these, I would argue it is even more bad form online.

In forum world you can also avoid some people if you want. Add user to foe-list, and won't see posts of that person. Haven't tried here, but I suppose it works.

Good suggestion, though that's not quite the same, as other people will still see and respond to their posts.

windowsrefund wrote:And what makes a forum any different than real life? When it comes to good manners, do you always feel so "entitled" to jump into a group and tell them to talk about what YOU want to talk about when the conversation evolves into something you're just not interested in?

My experience of real life discussions is that those with a point and that involve multiple people have a better flow and are more productive with the participation of someone skilled in the role facilitating (bottom-up) or chairing (top-down).

Jumping up on a podium and telling everyone what they can and can not discuss

The podium of each thread is usually earmarked for discussion of the original topic of that thread. In that light, the above statement can be read differently.

raboof wrote:In this thread it didn't seem too bad to me (yet?). I could split the topic in 2 if that helps, though.

It's not too bad yet, though it's good to figure out ways to address potential eventual derailments, as has been seen before.

Nice handy overview.

I count around 30 different daw's...

With each pos en negative stuff, some daw's lack options that others have and vice versa.

Wouldn't it be better to all work together and narrow it down to a choice of around 5 daw's instead?
And all focus to make them work 100%.

It's not worth restricting the number of DAWs listed in the spreadsheet. If anyone wishes to focus on 5 DAWs and fill them out, that's good.

To say the same thing in another way; there is a fair difference between the worth of someone or some group of people giving themselves such a constraint and doing the work to fill in those columns, and removing all but 5 DAWs so that's all anyone can work on.

Regarding the mess of the spreadsheet - I've a friend with a workstation, so I'll try to find a day in the next two months to put the work in.

If anyone has any problems with using Google Spreadsheet atm, be constructive and make a proposal as to an alternative.