On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Greg Reddin <gtreddin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another thing about ardour that makes it hard for me to adopt it
> wholeheartedly is the way it is developed. It seems, IMHO, that
> Release 1.0 should've come out a long time ago, like after real-time
> multitrack recording, editing, and mixing were available. Or maybe
> start over, do a refactor, then release when those features are
> working again. There's something psychologically limiting (to me)
> when a product reaches version 0.9beta19 and still doesn't seem ready
> for a "release". To me, that seems to create a culture where things
> move very slowly and gives the impression that it will never really
> be production-ready. I recognize that there are very differing
> opinions on what a "release" actually means in open source.
Greg, having worked for software companies and having been on the
preiphery of Ardour development for a while now, I can shed some
light on a few things, I think.
The first is that the Ardour folks have approached the project in a
manner that's on par with commercial software developers. The big
difference is that the process is open and visible to the public, and
we were able to start using the tools long before we could have in a
closed development environment. Yes, it's beta software at the
moment, but there's been a feature freeze on for a while, and there's
serious work going on to get Ardour to v1.0 readiness. Paul and the
other Ardour developers are working hard on bringing it (and JACK) to
stability worthy of a commercial release.
You said that "Release 1.0 should've come out a long time ago, like
after real-time multitrack recording, editing, and mixing were available."
The goal of Ardour is to be a professional-grade DAW, and I believe that
they are approaching that goal. I don't think it would have done them
any good to have released something without a certain minimum number of
features above and beyond the barebones recording, mixing and editing
functions.
Regarding the stability, I've found it to be much more stable now than
ever before. I use it on a regular basis now, and while I still run
into problems, I've never lost more than a single take in Ardour, even
when it crashed and burned badly.
As for usability, I agree that it's complex, but given what it does, I
can't see how you'd avoid that. All DAWs I've ever worked with have a
similar problem. The good news is that when 1.0 is released, there'll
be documentation available as well! This is rumored to include a nice
cheatsheet for keyboard and mouse shortcuts, which I can't wait for!
It sounds like if you want a rock-solid Linux DAW solution, you're
currently out of luck, but that _will_ change. But just because the
Ardour team hasn't been releasing beta versions lately, don't assume
that means development has stagnated. The big push now is on bug fixes
as they roll steadily to 1.0. It ain't glamorous, but it has to be done,
and they're doing it.
OK, I'm done cheering from the sidelines; I've got to do a rough mix
before the drummer on my current project comes in for some overdubs!
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
