"Tim Howard": > > > > 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? > Bad wordings. I ment that traversos interface is about efficiency, or at least that the main focus is about efficiency. Thats how it appears too me. It might be simple and intuitive too though, I haven't given that much thought. :-) > > > 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. > Well, I would like for another daw to take over so that the good programmers would work on that other daw instead. Unless; Ardour either gets a significantly more efficient user interface, or it gets support for an extension language so that it will be possible to customize it without dwelling into thousands of lines of C++ code. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
