Dave Phillips a écrit : > 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. > Hey Dave, I understand your point. I was not saying the client/server 'awareness' had to be ditched. Even as a monolotic exe, OSC, midi, and any other protocol could still exist. My point was that when I decide to do music I don't have hours to kill and reading man pages/collecting contradictory information on the web is the last thing I feel like doing... In my eye, "ease of use" should never be sacrificed against flexibility. In malte's case it could be just a shell script that fires both exes. In my view, It's up to the developpers to sort out the issues of 'getting started' and make his/her work usable... and it's all to his benefits, otherwise his work is going to be restricted to a few die-hards and all the time and love spend coding stuff is going to be 'wasted'... Linux is a great platform but it has miles to cover before it can 'compete' with the mainstream players in term of audio. And I'm not talking about capacities, inventivity or available software but only due to the fact setup is a bitch: I consider myself not being a retard and I haven't been able to get a rt kernel working properly on any of my machines. Usability out of the box is the biggest challenge. Everyone working on any piece of the puzzle should focus on it. I guess I'm going to get fragged for saying that :) ++ Marc. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
