[Ardour-Dev] testing of 2.X SVN requested

[fons at kokkinizita.net]

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:32 PM,  <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> > Apart from that, the moment Ardour drops OSX support I'll donate
> > 1000 Euros. But not before. When I get a version that only does
> > recording, playback and editing and *nothing more* again I'll
> > donate 1000 Euros.
> 
> that's very noble fons.

Let me say first that I do appreciate your reply to a 
post that was indeed meant to be somewhat provocative.

> the first problem is that every month the OS X user base pays more
> than that to have Ardour on their platform. as a result, the
> incentives don't really line up.

I do understand this. And if ever you would decide that
Ardour will be a commercial OSX application I wouldn't
hold that against you. 
What bothers me is the current 'mixed status'. From the 
website: 'for OSX and Linux'. Note the order. Ardour is
without any doubt the most advanced audio app existing
for Linux, and one of the few with a consistent history
of quality and improvement. But if its main focus is
moving towards OSX, something that *will* have its impact
on any decisions made, I find it difficult to support it,
either financially or by contributing code.

> the second problem is that you used the word "editing", which means
> just about anything that a particular user wants it to mean. i have no
> doubt that you could provide your own robust definition and stick to
> it.

Very simple: anything you can do in the Edit window: moving,
splitting, copying regions, taking care of crossfades etc. that
are the consequence of editing, but without otherwise modifying
the recorded signal in any way.

What I'm hinting at is optionally splitting the 'tape recorder'
and 'mixer' functionality or at least  having the bare track
outputs available at jack ports without having to go via a mixer
strip, pnnners, busses, etc.

For most of my work, the recording, playback and editing parts
are what matters. I want those to be as reliable and stable as
they can be. But presently it is not possible to use these parts
without also loading support for a series of plugin formats,
rubberbanding, MIDI in various forms, tempo and beats related
stuff, and lots of other things. And very often developments in
those areas break the fundamental things, or make them less
stable. This does not give me the feeling of using a reliable
tool. And even if software quality control would be perfect,
just the availability of lots of unnecessary features, the
possibility of accidentally clicking something that could
destroy a recording makes the tool less secure than it could
be.

Ciao,

-- 
Je veux que la mort me trouve plantant mes choux, mais
nonchalant d’elle, et encore plus de mon jardin imparfait.
(Michel de Montaigne)