LMMS 0.4.6 released

[autostatic]

Last night LMMS 0.4.6 was released, lots of bugs fixed: http://lmms.git.sf.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p ... 499763436a

As I really like LMMS I'm pretty stoked and as soon as packages for Ubuntu 9.10 are available I will lock myself up for a while to produce some massive floor fillers

Jeremy

[funkmuscle]

link broken...

[autostatic]

Which one? They all appear to work

[thorgal]

just got 5mn to try it. It triggers loads of xruns, as previous versions did. Totally unusable in my environment. No other jack app does this here so I guess, there is room for improvement before it can be used in a full jack based studio. But I suspect this kind of app is not meant to be used in a modular ecosystem as it tries to be a full ecosystem on its own

[brummer]

just got 5mn to try it. It triggers loads of xruns, as previous versions did. Totally unusable in my environment.

Thanks for let us know , I was shortly befor to check it out, because I ain't found a change log, but now,
I could save my time, and wait if they wone include proper jack support once.

[autostatic]

The changelog is here: http://lmms.git.sf.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p ... 499763436a

No JACK support improvements. On my systems it works quite ok though with JACK. I do get some xruns occasionally, but only on starting up and closing LMMS. And when loading large projects. I can work with it fine though.

[funkmuscle]

not a deb user so I wanted to source code. found it at their website... it's not posted on the home page yes but click on download and it's the latest version.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/lmms/fi ... 2/download

thanx guys.. will try my hand at it with jack

[SR]

Unbelievable. Is it a surprise that people would like lmms to work with jack? Apparently so because this was posted to the lmms mailing list by Tobias Doerffel:

Hi,

Am Samstag, 26. Dezember 2009 21:39:56 schrieb Fabrizio Furnari:
> lmms is a great tool but I cannot use
> it without jack.
Why? Our goal is to provide an all-in-one-solution which obsoletes things like
JACK. Native ALSA backend allows smaller latencies without xruns (except if
CPU is simply overloaded) so all I can suggest is to use LMMS with ALSA and
enjoy it We're using the JACK API the way it is documented, so no idea
what's wrong.

Toby

Has this never come up as a feature request? I'm in shock... lmms is a neat tool but it's a long way off from obsoleting anything.

[autostatic]

Yeah that mail really struck me too. Just like you I use a Firewire device which only works with JACK. Apparently LMMS is meant to be used as a standalone, all-in-one solution on top of ALSA. For the Linux platform I don't think that's the way you should go.

[studio32]

I suggest you to try LADI. Make a 'new studio' launch the applications you want in it (f2), save it. And you can start your 'own LMMS' everytime with the same apps and Jack connections. And if there are stuff in LMMS which are useful and nowhere else. Try to find a dev who is able to make from that piece a standalone app.

See also: http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2356

[autostatic]

That's no option for me. It means I have to switch to jack2 and I'm not willing to do that yet. And I will need to invest even more time then to get to the point what it's all about: making music.

[studio32]

That's no option for me. It means I have to switch to jack2 and I'm not willing to do that yet. And I will need to invest even more time then to get to the point what it's all about: making music.

It's all about making music, that's exactly why I never touched lmms so far and use jack2 and LADI.

[StudioDave]

Unbelievable. Is it a surprise that people would like lmms to work with jack? Apparently so because this was posted to the lmms mailing list by Tobias Doerffel:

... Our goal is to provide an all-in-one-solution which obsoletes things like JACK.

Wow. Sigh. What can I add to that ? When the devs are convinced that the most important advance in Linux audio is ready for obsolescence then at least we know that they're not interested in any larger software ecology. So, they don't see a purpose in connectivity with Ardour, JAMin, JACK Rack, or any of the dozens of other JACK-aware applications. Oh well.

I think that there are plenty of happy users of LMMS out there. They don't use JACK and they don't need low-latency. Within its constraints LMMS is satisfactory for those users, and it would insult them and the devs to suggest that there's something wrong where there is in fact a conscious design decision at work.

However, it's also clear that the devs are missing the clue train re: JACK, much as the devs for JavaSound have done (they equate JACK with esd and NAS, believe it or not). Not much we can do about that now. Anyway, following the LMMS discussion on KVR leads me to believe that LMMS might soon become WMMS.

It's also disingenuous for a developer to respond with "We've done everything right, you're doing something wrong" when the reports are overwhelmingly critical of LMMS's support for JACK. I built and installed 0.4.6 yesterday. Performance under JACK still sucks. Performance under ALSA was better, as long as I didn't move the mouse much. Again I'll stress that LMMS doesn't hold much potential *for my purposes*, so I'm perhaps not the most fair-minded reviewer here, but if they're going to include JACK support at all then they should be more concerned about its performance on machines that can handle large-scale multitrack/multichannel recording in Ardour, complete with multiple plugins, without a single xrun.

[autostatic]

It's all about making music, that's exactly why I never touched lmms so far and use jack2 and LADI.

That's your way of working, your workflow. LMMS is part of my workflow because it allows me to create something quickly. And I make use of JACK intensively so it would be nice if LMMS would fit a bit better in that workflow too.

[autostatic]

Anyway, following the LMMS discussion on KVR leads me to believe that LMMS might soon become WMMS.

Could you post a link to that specific discussion on KVR?

It's also disingenuous for a developer to respond with "We've done everything right, you're doing something wrong" when the reports are overwhelmingly critical of LMMS's support for JACK.

The aforementioned happy users of LMMS won't report anything. It's mainly folks like us who know a bit more about making music with Linux and Linux in general who are being critical. But I fear that we are really not the users the LMMS devs are focusing on, that's their choice but it does have consequences. In my case it would be that I end up in the long term with a configuration like studio32 already pointed out.