> A better interface would be less intuitive, then.
Extremely well put.
What - you fell for that one? It was about the dumbest argument I have
heard, all it discussed is the meaning of the word 'intuitive' hence
actually says nothing about either interface.
> thinks the interface is inefficient is a bad idea.
I couldn't agree more.
I could agree less although I understand the point. The issue is that if you
want to make sound then the user interface has to be efficient for several
reasons, to start with so that CPU cycles are available for what you
actually want to do - make sound, and that it is responsive even under heavy
RT audio usage. If the interface is sluggish then you cannot accomplish what
you want to do. As such, efficiency is of interest. Ardour may be efficient,
then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big fat servers it is
being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of software that only works
on the fastest system available and its target audience suddenly diminishes.
Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a situation where bloatware is
coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy a faster system?
Nick.
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
