On Friday 05 August 2005 22:46, Paul Davis wrote: > there are (at least) two companies that have tried to make a business > from running VST's on linux, in both cases spendings hundreds of > thousands of dollars on development costs. why do you find it amusing > that there was no instant-ready-to-work-as-soon-as-apt/yum-was-done > equivalent of their hard work? to support your point, paul (which i find amusing), i wonder why someone would insist on using VST binaries. most of them are unstable and each one has its own interpretation of what the standard looks like. the result is a lot of hacked win32 hosts that most of the time only run 80% of all available plugins. i'd rather want to use plugins where i can make the developer fix a bug when it comes up - and where the developer is actually willing to do so. because we both want to hurt commercial software developers. that makes us brothers :P -- -- leonard "paniq" ritter -- http://www.paniq.org -- http://www.mjoo.org
