M-.-n wrote: > Even tho the approach is not 'out there' (as it seems quite a bit of > linux programs use this client / server approach) I have the feeling > it's the kind of details that could pull off users from adopting linux > as a music platform. If you plan on trying a synth, you'd want to see > it's face right ? It's kind of the same as the jackd/jackstart/qjackctl > issue. When I tryed it first, I got really confused by all of them. > Actually, I still didn't get the jackstart/jackd difference, my eee > seems to need jackstart, my ubuntu install doesn't even have one. > > In my views, a single executable would be a lot better, and if anybody > wants to run it without a GUI, give them a command-line option. Sure > that will mean your main executable will depend on user interface libs > but i don't see anybody wanting to run the synth without wanting to > tweak it at some point so the libs will be needed anyway.... Respectfully, I disagree. The client/server architecture is one I wish more synths would adopt. Thanks to this design, the engine may be controlled by MIDI or OSC, can be run with or without a (possibly custom) GUI, and allows the engine to be used for purposes other than those originally intended. The client/server distinction confers great flexibility, though it may not be immediately apparent to the new user. Linuxsampler works this way, as does SuperCollider3, and I believe the new Csound API permits similar operation. Best, dp _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
