On 6/13/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tim Howard": > > On 6/13/07, lra4691@xxxxxxx <lra4691@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Not to bash Ardour, but if the interface of Traverso is as superior as >> it seems, perhaps Ardour developers could learn a bit. I believe >> Ardour dev's should be focusing on improving the interface's >> responsiveness before adding new features, but everyone seems to be >> pushing for MIDI in the next release ;p > > I suppose it depends on the goal, really. At first glance, Traverso > seems to be aimed more towards an audience of home users, with the > emphasis being on simplicity and an intuitive interface. Ardour is > intended for serious (i.e. professional) audio work, and therefore has > a correspondingly more complex interface. > Since you haven't looked at it more than a "glance", and therefore don't know anything to be able to say anything either, I wonder what your agenda is. But it seems like your agenda is to defend Ardour, no matter what. In case that is true, why?
I haven't been on the Linux Audio scene long enough to develop much of an agenda of any kind. I guess my reasoning is kind of based on the following flow of logic, if you can call it that... 1. Ardour is by far the most popular professional-grade Linux DAW 2. Ardour is open source, with many contributing developers 3. Unless a different user base is targeted (and thus, different features) it would seem pointless to recreate the wheel, but would benefit many to further enhance it 4. Traverso's website seems to be aimed more at home users (just my gut feeling)
Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor).
Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but it would have been even greater if all the developers on ardour spent all of their time exclusively working on making ardour's user interface more efficient to use. Traverso is an excellent program to look at to improve the situation. [1] http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/2007-March/004085.html
Of course Ardour can be improved by looking at other DAWs and seeing what works and what doesn't. I have read through this post and agree with most of your suggestions. A number of them have been implemented in Ardour2. But I'm a little confused why you would say you have "a small agenda too, against Ardour." Submitting feature requests and reporting bugs (as you have) is very constructive and helpful to further development. So I wouldn't view that as having an agenda against Ardour. -TimH _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
