unity with packages for all Multi-Media distros

[funkmuscle]

Hey, I was just over at the Ardour site and was not too happy to see the Mac users all over it.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that they're using it but they now have the mixbus 1.1 from Harrison and Linux doesn't because I thing Paul said something about binary issues.
I guess he means that some many different distros out there that is not easy for Harrison to make it available for linux??
Yes I understand that every distro has its own way of building apps. For instance, ArchLinux does it the best for me after trying all the Deb and RPM distros, but is it or will it be possible that one day, the building of apps will be the same on all distros??

I could be wrong but I think that's a set back for the linux proaudio world. I even had a vst dev offering his code to a few linux devs and then he changed his mind saying that he didn't know how anything gets done in the linux development world.
He told me he works with devs for Mac and Windows and never had an issue but with linux, the devs were arguing among themselves. He wanted to build the apps under his brand but these guys wanted it for other reasons like their own projects.
He even said that he would love to be a user but after that, it left a bad taste in his mouth.

[brummer]

Hi funkmuscle

The build process is the same on any distro out thre, they all use the same tools for compile a source to a binary.
The problem is the different stage of versions from the used libs/tools. Remember the probs we get with every gcc update, that happend with every lib we used.

So, it's the way linux develop itself, it's a ongoing process, every user is free to choose a stage of the development to use.
On windows or mac, you can choose between some limited steps, indeed, that make it more easy for develop software, simply develop it for win2000, or win7, but not for both.

[funkmuscle]

thanx buddy for the clarification... Since I'm not at the dev's end and don't know how things work, it's confusing for me.

[Havoc]

Development isn't the problem, distribution is.

Simpliest is make it open source and let world+dog sort it out. Advantage is you get a lot of traction if your app is good and fills a void. In that case others will do the work for you and include it in the repository of distros. You can put out the source yourself for those that can take care of themselves. Bad (from a commercial point of view) is that everyone sees your underwear (code). So anyone can do with it as you like which doesn't gel with control freaks.

Intermediate option is to build with static libs and get out a .tar. With some study you probably end up with something that will work with most distros. But you won't get a community around it and you won't get into distros.

Do it all yourself and make binaries/packages for every distro under the sun. You end up doing a lot of stupid work (regression testing) with still a lot of people complaining you don't provide something for their distro of choice. Might work if you can handle the load.

Go commercial, make it work with a single distro and version and stuff all the rest of the world.

I even had a vst dev offering his code to a few linux devs and then he changed his mind saying that he didn't know how anything gets done in the linux development world.

Last I heard there were licencing issues with vst. So that is probably why he has "issues" with linux devs. But it is really his problem if he comes from a different world and thinks everything is the same everywhere.

I was just over at the Ardour site and was not too happy to see the Mac users all over it.

Yep, you're not the only one that doesn't like that development.

[funkmuscle]

you're right Havoc. That's the only thing I hate about open source, the linux apps get shared Windows and Macs but we can't have theirs.

[quote]Last I heard there were licencing issues with vst. So that is probably why he has "issues" with linux devs. But it is really his problem if he comes from a different world and thinks everything is the same everywhere./quote]

He wanted to make ladspa plugins but kept it as an in house app under his label. He didn't mind his code being used in other projects as long as it had his name on it.
The linux devs didn't want to go with that.

[Havoc]

He didn't mind his code being used in other projects as long as it had his name on it.
The linux devs didn't want to go with that.

I do think someone isn't telling the whole story there. I'm not 100% sure but I tought the GPL specifically states that such attributions have to be respected and included when code is passed on. And there are other apps like that where there is an inhouse version and an open version. Also ladspa plugins are almost all in collections identified by the name of the author (Rezound even lists them by maker). Strange...

[studio32]

He wanted to make ladspa plugins but kept it as an in house app under his label. He didn't mind his code being used in other projects as long as it had his name on it.
The linux devs didn't want to go with that.

His name will be there. He is the copyright holder. If others use the code in another app, there are of course more names there...

[funkmuscle]

He did say credit to all for working on all the plugins. He did say that the linux devs couldn't see eye to eye with each other also.
That was his biggest problem. From there, he figured it would be a mess with all the apps.
He did say he will revisit later.
For me now that we have guitarix and especially JcGui, no need for vsts at the moment... I love our LADSPA plugins.