lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...


From: Johnny Ferguson
Subject: Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:10:14 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100528 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.0.5

On 07/22/2010 07:24 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
SNIP: no argument

So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end
user jury is still out, and their case has not even started.


I think the jury is in, but the developers don't care to listen.

Why should they?  It has no jurisdiction.


*deletes 3 paragraphs after realizing the above response nails the point down quite well*

If I had known this was the attitude of the community, I would have had second thoughts in joining it. So for now I just continue coding till I manage to figure out the things I don't understand.

While true that as they work for free it cannot be expected of them, I
find it perplexing that they would waste their time developing
something in such a way that it is less usable than what the community
wants.

Because it is what _they_ want?  Why should they bother with a
"community" that does nothing for them except call them names and
complain?

The solution to that (I believe) comes from the proprietary
world. Having an architect who can specify the design of a
project/program start to finish.

Feel free to develop and design and specify a project/program start to
finish.  Then recruit your minions.

I find the minions are more willing when you've already laid down a codebase. So I'm on it.


You might want to look at the history of "Blender"
<URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/>.

Not everything is as black&white as you want to see it.

Nor would I ever claim it's black and white. I'm not pro-GPL, nor am I
pro closed-source. I believe that software should aim to benefit
society as best as it can, and I acknowledge that the GPL aims for
that, I simply took issue with the implication that FL could be what
it is as a piece of GPL software.

Blender is an edge-case, and while I acknowledge its quality and
usefulness as perhaps a sign of potential, I don't believe it's
statistically representative of open-source software.

So you did not look at the history of Blender after all and missed the
point.

I'm wary of large blocks of text. I read it now and am aware of the point you're trying to make.


While I don't deny that OSS will mature, I question its ability to
keep up with the curve unless it finds a more effective way to
allocate its resources and manage its design.

You are aware that Blender did not keep up with the curve until it found
a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design by
_switching_ _from_ _proprietary_ _development_ _to_ _Open_ _Source_?

I'd say at that point resources becomes a misnomer. After they raised the 100,000 EUR to get it out of the hands of the investors, there were no resources to manage. Work was being done voluntarily, and luckily they ended up with a very capable (and complex) product.

While this is a touching story, I don't know if it would apply to everything. Let's say IL GPLs FL. You now have a much harder time making money off the software itself. Software that takes significant time and vision to create. So the users would benefit in the short term by having access to the guts of the machine, but would they benefit in the long term when the architects that made it what it was walk away, no longer able to make a living? A lot of people are quick to cast FL as some kind of toy, but it innovated heavily by making advanced functions quite accessible.

It takes 2 things to make a good program:
1. Technical Know-How
2. Design Know-How

I see a lot of 1 in current GPL offerings, but not so much of 2. Blender has a decent design, and can get away with its complexity in light of the advanced function it performs, but I don't see why audio editors get away with it. Audio can be intricate, but what the software does is rather straightforward.


That it offers more benefits in the form of potential is not in
question, but that it can offer software on par with commercial
applications is in question.

Blender was not able to stay "on par" while being commercial software.

until I see such a thing being the case for more applications, I'll take this with a grain of salt.


Just personally, I see a correlation between quality and development
style. As a windows user, I used Fireworks and FL Studio. I've come to
linux, and I still haven't found equivalent functionality.

Equivalent functionality does not fall magically from the sky, unless
you are living in a fairy dream.


of course not. It is the result of sustained effort. I just find it sad that for all the effort that went into something like GIMP, it's not even nearly as useable (though I guess one can console themselves with all the hideous filter plugins)

I think it's clear at this point the combination of our attitudes is in no way fruitful, so I won't try to push things any further. You offer some interesting points to consider, but I'm not convinced that open-sourcing apps is a magic bullet applicable to every situation.

-Johnny



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]