On 2/24/06, Rob <lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri February 24 2006 11:36, Arnold Krille wrote: > > Yes, it is: Rosegarden doesn't need KDE (at least if the > > programmers did their job). It just needs kdelibs which is > > much smaller and faster to compile/install than whole KDE. > > I don't know whether this means the programmers did their job or > not, but when I fire up rosegarden on my machine, it launches > kdeinit, dcopserver, and all that other cruft if it's not > already running. > > So even if you're running GNOME or IceWM or whatever, you are > also running KDE while you're running Rosegarden, just not the > desktop, panel, et al. > > I personally have no problem with that, because (1) I run KDE > already and (2) Rosegarden has never been advertised as a > lightweight anything, but I see their point. I doubt other > full-featured sequencer apps are much lighter. > > Rob Well, I don't think that it can be labeled as full-featured as Rosegarden et al, but seq24 does a decent job, although it is not so much linear as it is pattern-based. It seems pretty light to me, and if you're using a light desktop/wm, you probably don't mind missing some features, I would think... I don't know, I had a lot of issues with Rosegarden and the way it manages the instruments and how it never remembered them if I re-open the file again at a later date, but I think it's a great application just the same. But I'll likely use seq24 myself, as it seems more like my hardware-based sequencer/synth. So, to the OP, there's an option to look into if you can deal with loop/pattern-based sequencers. Dana
