If you had tried, and succeeded, in creating a build system for Csound
both with autotools and with SCons, as I have, you would not be able
to say what you are saying about SCons.

If my assumption is wrong and you have in fact created an autotools
build system for Csound, I apologize and invite you to contribute it.

About the install target, what is really needed is a package target.
Then the regular Csound build system could be used to build a package,
and the regular system tools could be used to install the package.
That would kill two birds with one stone.

Regards,
Mike

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not to take away credit where credit is due, thanks again, like I said
> earlier, to the developers for bringing us the awesome power that is today's
> Csound.....
>
> BUT...it was a *known issue* in 2009 (in the last release) that after a
> prepackaged binary install on Linux, 'libwiiuse.so' is not present and we
> can't run csound. It's still an issue as of Csound 5.12!!!! C'mon folks, if
> you want more people to use Csound, it needs to work out-of-the-box......it
> means minding the annoying little details.....maybe you don't care, but all
> that's rescuing Csound from obscurity is he people that are compiling it
> intelligently for the various distros themselves and packaging it with sane
> defaults and no missing dependencies.....no wonder so many give up on
> Csound, they want to start making music right away, and it's very difficult
> if the installation is your first hurdle.
>
> ...and, can I make a plea to use a standard 'configure, make, make install'
> procedure? SCONS, it turns out, ain't the easy piece of software it promised
> to be years ago.....much more bloated and crufty than GNU 'MAKE' ever was,
> IMO.....and no standard install script, either.
>
> AKJ
>
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>

Michael Gogins wrote:

> If you had tried, and succeeded, in creating a build system for Csound
> both with autotools and with SCons, as I have, you would not be able
> to say what you are saying about SCons.
> 
> If my assumption is wrong and you have in fact created an autotools
> build system for Csound, I apologize and invite you to contribute it.

Would a parallel autotools based build system be accepted into CVS? If
so I'm just about tempted to have a crack at it.

Erik

I have a similar problem. Csound 5.11 refuses to run with the following
error:

csound: error while loading shared libraries: liblo.so.7: cannot open shared
object file: No such file or directory

I'm on Ubuntu (64 bit, karmic), and this exotic liblo.so.7 isn't directly
available here, and when I tried to get it via alien from an rpm, it didn't
work, so my choice was going back to my distribution's standard package
5.10, this however somehow broke Qutesound, and when I tried to install this
one again it gave me another error, saying it can't find csPerfThread.hpp
because ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'CsoundPerformanceThread’ with no
type.

I mean, if I hadn't invested so many hours in making my own csd's in the
past years, I would certainly give up at this point and never want to hear
about Csound again, so I wholeheartely agree to this thread's initiator's
point about the necessity of making the installation process more
user-friendly.

On the other hand, maybe it's intentional that Csound continues to be some
elitarian piece of software, so that only some insiders know how to use it
to make their powerful music, certainly helps to stay ahead of the
competition...
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27669346.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I've stuck with it due to investment in a book and lack-of-desire to  
learn something else, and fully sympathize.
Also, *are* there other languages that you generally edit in a text  
editor and then can run from a console?
I am using an older version, but if midi (according to another  
thread) and even just flat-out functioning is an issue (the former is  
where I was looking to venture relatively shortly), then I need to  
look into something else.

Greg

On Feb 21, 2010, at 3:56 AM, moleculeColony wrote:

>
> I have a similar problem. Csound 5.11 refuses to run with the  
> following
> error:
>
> csound: error while loading shared libraries: liblo.so.7: cannot  
> open shared
> object file: No such file or directory
>
> I'm on Ubuntu (64 bit, karmic), and this exotic liblo.so.7 isn't  
> directly
> available here, and when I tried to get it via alien from an rpm,  
> it didn't
> work, so my choice was going back to my distribution's standard  
> package
> 5.10, this however somehow broke Qutesound, and when I tried to  
> install this
> one again it gave me another error, saying it can't find  
> csPerfThread.hpp
> because ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'CsoundPerformanceThread’  
> with no
> type.
>
> I mean, if I hadn't invested so many hours in making my own csd's  
> in the
> past years, I would certainly give up at this point and never want  
> to hear
> about Csound again, so I wholeheartely agree to this thread's  
> initiator's
> point about the necessity of making the installation process more
> user-friendly.
>
> On the other hand, maybe it's intentional that Csound continues to  
> be some
> elitarian piece of software, so that only some insiders know how to  
> use it
> to make their powerful music, certainly helps to stay ahead of the
> competition...
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy- 
> packaging-tp27473586p27669346.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi,

Packaging universally for linux is hard to get right, exactly because
of the issues you mention. Since John, who prepares the installers
builds on Suse (I think), the linux binaries are only guaranteed to
run there without trouble (and only for the particular version he is
using).

Reports might be useful to get things fixed, but it's very time
consuming, and might even be impossible in some cases...

Building from Csound from source on linux is somewhat easier than on
other platforms, so I'd recommend this for linux users who want more
recent packages.

Cheers,
Andrés


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Greg, I have to agree with Andres on this one, building it yourself
is probably the easiest way to go about it. It might take a while to
get it going but once you're done it makes keeping up the date with
the latest version really easy. There is good info here,
http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/BuildingCsound.html
With regards to your question
'Also, *are* there other languages that you generally edit in a text
editor and then can run from a console?'
Pretty much all computer programming languages work like this i.e.,
you edit the source code in an editor and then you compile the code.
Most compilers output binary executables, Csound outputs audio.

Rory.


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I'm surprised no one has responded this way yet, but I have the
feeling that with all the effort put into actually developing Csound
by the developers- who, as I understand, are all volunteers, no?-
maybe getting more people to use Csound shouldn't be also thrown on
their shoulders. I can't tell you how many open source software forums
I've visited and seen someone complain about ease of use and get a
very quick, very harsh rebuttal from people who after all only devoted
their time to the project for their own interest.
Compiling Csound is not that hard, although it was unbelievably so the
first time I did it. If the problem is getting it to run for you, then
figuring out how to compile it would solve that problem. Otherwise,
you're speaking for lots of people by saying they will or won't be
interested in Csound. I'm all for singing its praises and spreading
its popularity, but I don't necessarily hold the developers
responsible for that.

I've also got several issues that have been affecting users of
Rationale, but I bring them up when I notice them and eventually they
get resolved. If that's not fast enough for me, nothing's stopping me
from fixing the problems myself.

-Chuckk

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not to take away credit where credit is due, thanks again, like I said
> earlier, to the developers for bringing us the awesome power that is today's
> Csound.....
>
> BUT...it was a *known issue* in 2009 (in the last release) that after a
> prepackaged binary install on Linux, 'libwiiuse.so' is not present and we
> can't run csound. It's still an issue as of Csound 5.12!!!! C'mon folks, if
> you want more people to use Csound, it needs to work out-of-the-box......it
> means minding the annoying little details.....maybe you don't care, but all
> that's rescuing Csound from obscurity is he people that are compiling it
> intelligently for the various distros themselves and packaging it with sane
> defaults and no missing dependencies.....no wonder so many give up on
> Csound, they want to start making music right away, and it's very difficult
> if the installation is your first hurdle.
>
> ...and, can I make a plea to use a standard 'configure, make, make install'
> procedure? SCONS, it turns out, ain't the easy piece of software it promised
> to be years ago.....much more bloated and crufty than GNU 'MAKE' ever was,
> IMO.....and no standard install script, either.
>
> AKJ
>
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>

Dear Chuck,
What's keeping me from fixing the problems myself is that I have  
taken exactly 5 formal classes on computers in my  life, and every  
last one of them involved 101-level instruction in an office or  
graphics suite for a commercial OS.
Somebody wants to direct a middle school teacher in debugging much  
larger bodies of code than he's ever written or edited, or whatever  
process is involved in maintaining csound, I'm all ears.
Part of the reason I chose to learn csound was because of its age,  
which I thought meant stability.
The other part was that it was chosen by the (now-somewhat- 
discredited) OLPC project, which gave me some belief it was well- 
suited to realtime use - I was pretty impressed by vaporware re: the  
apps for music expected to come out of Sugar (didn't think all those  
3rd-world kids would have much patience for . . . well, mediocre  
python interfaces as a result of using a language for a job it's not  
all that great at), or at least enough that the naysayers I'd read  
who recommended other languages were comparatively easy to drown out.
Not a beef with Chuck, but at least I wanted to sympathize with  
complaints about broken-ness and insularity.
This is a 25 year old language with an active development community,  
right?
Aren't release candidates supposed to "just work" at that point?

Greg

On Feb 21, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:

> I'm surprised no one has responded this way yet, but I have the
> feeling that with all the effort put into actually developing Csound
> by the developers- who, as I understand, are all volunteers, no?-
> maybe getting more people to use Csound shouldn't be also thrown on
> their shoulders. I can't tell you how many open source software forums
> I've visited and seen someone complain about ease of use and get a
> very quick, very harsh rebuttal from people who after all only devoted
> their time to the project for their own interest.
> Compiling Csound is not that hard, although it was unbelievably so the
> first time I did it. If the problem is getting it to run for you, then
> figuring out how to compile it would solve that problem. Otherwise,
> you're speaking for lots of people by saying they will or won't be
> interested in Csound. I'm all for singing its praises and spreading
> its popularity, but I don't necessarily hold the developers
> responsible for that.
>
> I've also got several issues that have been affecting users of
> Rationale, but I bring them up when I notice them and eventually they
> get resolved. If that's not fast enough for me, nothing's stopping me
> from fixing the problems myself.
>
> -Chuckk
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Not to take away credit where credit is due, thanks again, like I  
>> said
>> earlier, to the developers for bringing us the awesome power that  
>> is today's
>> Csound.....
>>
>> BUT...it was a *known issue* in 2009 (in the last release) that  
>> after a
>> prepackaged binary install on Linux, 'libwiiuse.so' is not present  
>> and we
>> can't run csound. It's still an issue as of Csound 5.12!!!! C'mon  
>> folks, if
>> you want more people to use Csound, it needs to work out-of-the- 
>> box......it
>> means minding the annoying little details.....maybe you don't  
>> care, but all
>> that's rescuing Csound from obscurity is he people that are  
>> compiling it
>> intelligently for the various distros themselves and packaging it  
>> with sane
>> defaults and no missing dependencies.....no wonder so many give up on
>> Csound, they want to start making music right away, and it's very  
>> difficult
>> if the installation is your first hurdle.
>>
>> ...and, can I make a plea to use a standard 'configure, make, make  
>> install'
>> procedure? SCONS, it turns out, ain't the easy piece of software  
>> it promised
>> to be years ago.....much more bloated and crufty than GNU 'MAKE'  
>> ever was,
>> IMO.....and no standard install script, either.
>>
>> AKJ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

gmschroeder wrote:
> 
> Dear Chuck,
> What's keeping me from fixing the problems myself is that I have  
> taken exactly 5 formal classes on computers in my  life, and every  
> last one of them involved 101-level instruction in an office or  
> graphics suite for a commercial OS.
> 
I'm with Greg on this one. I would have not a single clue how to compile a C
program in Windows 7. I mean, I'm sure I could do it if you held a revolver
to my head and gave me a year or so to work out the details, but I'm not
competent in that area. Also, I'd need a compiler, which I don't have and
have no other need for.

I do occasionally see a sort of Linux-is-the-only-real-OS mentality creeping
into discussions of Csound. Windows and Mac users don't seem to get much
respect.

While I fully sympathize with the limited resources of the developers in an
all-volunteer development effort, I can't help wishing Csound was easier for
Windows and Mac users (who are, of course, vastly in the majority) to use.

I mean, what's this megillah with PortAudio, for Pete's sake? None of my
other Windows programs sends data to PortAudio. It doesn't even exist,
except within Csound, and Csound doesn't know about my actual audio and MIDI
drivers. That's as good an example as any.

--Jim Aikin

I guess it seems to me like finding an amazingly skilled guitar player
in a small cafe and telling him he should play some Beyonce covers if
he really wants to compete with all the other bands out there that are
more accessible. There is no shortage of people who know what the
Csound developers should do. But, not being a Csound developer myself,
I can't speak for them. Seems to me they're refreshingly open to
criticism, compared to the Rosegarden/Ardour developers I've had
contact with.

-Chuckk


On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Jacob Joaquin  wrote:
> I'm with Greg and Jim on this one. The developers put all this time and
> effort into Csound. Though all this hard work is squandered if people are
> turned away from the difficulties of getting it up and running, or from a
> plethora of bugs, or from misinformation in the manuals, etc.
> I've mentioned this before, if developer's took a break from developing for
> a year, and instead, focused on tightening up various loose ends, stomping
> out bugs, and making it easier to get it up and running, Csound would
> benefit across the board. And not just in terms of software, but in the
> community as well. This could attract more people to the platform, which
> could then lead to more volunteers working to improve both the language and
> the documentation, which could attract more users, and then more volunteers,
> etc.
> The user experience really counts for something these days. Functionality
> alone won't cut it in the 21st century. Csound needs a vision, and a
> conceptual designer to guide it if it is going to compete with all the user
> friendly platforms the pop up over the next decade or two.
> Best,
> Jake
> --
> The Csound Blog - http://csound.noisepages.com/
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jim Aikin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> gmschroeder wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Chuck,
>> > What's keeping me from fixing the problems myself is that I have
>> > taken exactly 5 formal classes on computers in my  life, and every
>> > last one of them involved 101-level instruction in an office or
>> > graphics suite for a commercial OS.
>> >
>> I'm with Greg on this one. I would have not a single clue how to compile a
>> C
>> program in Windows 7. I mean, I'm sure I could do it if you held a
>> revolver
>> to my head and gave me a year or so to work out the details, but I'm not
>> competent in that area. Also, I'd need a compiler, which I don't have and
>> have no other need for.
>>
>> I do occasionally see a sort of Linux-is-the-only-real-OS mentality
>> creeping
>> into discussions of Csound. Windows and Mac users don't seem to get much
>> respect.
>>
>> While I fully sympathize with the limited resources of the developers in
>> an
>> all-volunteer development effort, I can't help wishing Csound was easier
>> for
>> Windows and Mac users (who are, of course, vastly in the majority) to use.
>>
>> I mean, what's this megillah with PortAudio, for Pete's sake? None of my
>> other Windows programs sends data to PortAudio. It doesn't even exist,
>> except within Csound, and Csound doesn't know about my actual audio and
>> MIDI
>> drivers. That's as good an example as any.
>>
>> --Jim Aikin
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27671830.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi,

Makng this noise is useful I think. It may make a developer who can
help aware of a problem. It is important to be specific, and sometime
you may have to insist (just like you might have to do with a
commercial software company... =) ).

I personally can't help on Windows, as I never use it. I have helped
in what I can in Linux and OS X, and particularly for the second the
situation is quite good. The linux binaries have never worked for me
either, but I think making them fully work everywhere is practically
impossible. I think the best bet is work with packagers to get recent
versions in the repositories. If you are willing to build Csound from
source I can help you as it is not hard (If any one wants to do it, we
could even compile a script which can help people download and build
csound for different platforms...)

Cheers,
Andrés

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Jim Aikin  wrote:
> I mean, what's this megillah with PortAudio, for Pete's sake? None of my
> other Windows programs sends data to PortAudio. It doesn't even exist,
> except within Csound, and Csound doesn't know about my actual audio and MIDI
> drivers. That's as good an example as any.
>

Portaudio is  a crospplatform library for audio access. It is not like
ASIO, MME or the sort, as it is not a driver model or a "real" audio
programming interface, but it is a wrapper. What it means is that you
can have your program use portaudio and you will have asio, mme,
coreaudio alsa and others available depending on your platform. So it
saves a lot of programming and testing time, because you write a
single piece of code that will work on most platforms. You have
probably never seen it as few (none?) commercial programs have the
need of so broad cross-platform compatibility. That's why you see ASIO
and others inside portaudio. Several other free software programs like
Audacity use it.

Cheers,
Andrés


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi 
I am using UbuntuStudio9.10 and do not want to wait passively any longer for
an Ubuntu Csound package to be updated. I am not a programmer but a user -
today the sun was shining brightly after 2 months of snow, so i said to
myself: today is a good day to build Csound myself!

I would like to share my experience in doing so and some questions that go
along with this experience. 
Now, you will have to know that there is a package in my system
(python-imaging-tk) and there is a problem with that. And because there is
an internal problem with that package I can not get rid of it - it refuses
to get uninstalled even with: sudo apt-get -f install. This is not good
because now i can not uninstall the old csound. I can install new packages
but cannot uninstall anything because of this constant error i am getting
with this python-imaging-tk package. Packages refuse to get uninstalled.

Back to Csound.
What did i do to get the latest Csound:
- went to Building Csound page in the manual:
- installed Scons
- got the CVS version
- in the manual there is talk about libdsndfile 1.0.13 or later, but
Synaptic shows libsndfile, so without the -d.
Ubuntu has version 1.0.20 so this must be the right one. Installed -dev as
well
- i had Python2.6 already installed
- portaudio19 and -dev are installed
- portmidi and -dev 
- libfltk1.1 installed but not the -dev because there were a lot of packages
that has to get installed too. Will FLTK work when the dev file is not
installed?
- swig 1.3.36
- libfluidsynth but not the dev file because of all these packages that come
along with it. Same question as above.
- liblo0-dev
- alsa of course is already installed but installed libasound2-dev too -
dont know why
- installed DDSI

I do not understand the part in the manual about OPCODEDIR64

CVS created Csound5 in my HOME. 
then i build Csound with these arguments:
scons buildDSSI=1 buildImageOpcodes=1 buildJavaWrapper=1
buildPythonOpcodes=1 buildUtilities=1 buildVirtual=1 Lib64=1 useDouble=1
useALSA=1 useFLTK=1 usePortAudio=1 useJack=1 usePortMidi=1 

and yes - it did build without errors. Great!
Now i still have the old Csound installed but want to get rid of it. And the
latest version is in my Home. And i can run it from there.
What is the convention to get Csound in the right place and not in my home?

thaks,
Menno



-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676062.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hello brave one!

Are you subscribed to the dev list? Maybe we can continue this there...

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM, menno  wrote:
>
> Hi
> I am using UbuntuStudio9.10 and do not want to wait passively any longer for
> an Ubuntu Csound package to be updated. I am not a programmer but a user -
> today the sun was shining brightly after 2 months of snow, so i said to
> myself: today is a good day to build Csound myself!
>
> I would like to share my experience in doing so and some questions that go
> along with this experience.
> Now, you will have to know that there is a package in my system
> (python-imaging-tk) and there is a problem with that. And because there is
> an internal problem with that package I can not get rid of it - it refuses
> to get uninstalled even with: sudo apt-get -f install. This is not good
> because now i can not uninstall the old csound. I can install new packages
> but cannot uninstall anything because of this constant error i am getting
> with this python-imaging-tk package. Packages refuse to get uninstalled.
>

I've had something like this happen before and it was due to a python
package which couldn't be deleted and had to be deleted manually. Can
you post the terminal output from synaptic?

> Back to Csound.
> What did i do to get the latest Csound:
> - went to Building Csound page in the manual:
> - installed Scons
> - got the CVS version
> - in the manual there is talk about libdsndfile 1.0.13 or later, but
> Synaptic shows libsndfile, so without the -d.
> Ubuntu has version 1.0.20 so this must be the right one. Installed -dev as
> well
> - i had Python2.6 already installed
> - portaudio19 and -dev are installed
> - portmidi and -dev
> - libfltk1.1 installed but not the -dev because there were a lot of packages
> that has to get installed too. Will FLTK work when the dev file is not
> installed?

Yes, FLTK will not work, as the -dev packages are the headers needed
to build any software which uses fltk. The ordinary (non -dev) package
is what is needed to run binaries which are already built.
If you need FLTK, you can get the -dev packages, but if you don't need
FLTK or the virtual keyboard, you can leave this uninstalled.

> - swig 1.3.36
> - libfluidsynth but not the dev file because of all these packages that come
> along with it. Same question as above.

Same answer...
> - liblo0-dev
> - alsa of course is already installed but installed libasound2-dev too -
> dont know why

Again, libasound2-dev is needed because of the headers. Note that this
is different from alsa-source which is the package to build alsa and
alsa drivers (or the linux kernel with alsa).

> - installed DDSI
you would need dssi-dev as well (I think this is also a separate package?)

>
> I do not understand the part in the manual about OPCODEDIR64

Can you say where in the manual?

>
> CVS created Csound5 in my HOME.
> then i build Csound with these arguments:
> scons buildDSSI=1 buildImageOpcodes=1 buildJavaWrapper=1
> buildPythonOpcodes=1 buildUtilities=1 buildVirtual=1 Lib64=1 useDouble=1
> useALSA=1 useFLTK=1 usePortAudio=1 useJack=1 usePortMidi=1
>
> and yes - it did build without errors. Great!
> Now i still have the old Csound installed but want to get rid of it. And the
> latest version is in my Home. And i can run it from there.
> What is the convention to get Csound in the right place and not in my home?
>

I use the install.py script to install Csound, and this works fine for
me, but has been problematic for others...
However, it is a good idea to remove the Csound package first, as you
may run into hard to track conflicts.

Cheers,
Andrés


> thaks,
> Menno
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676062.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 


Andrés

Andres Cabrera wrote:
> 
> 
> Are you subscribed to the dev list? Maybe we can continue this there...
> 
> 
> 
> 

Would you consider going to the IRC channel #csound?

Menno
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676527.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi Menno,

I'm there.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 3:21 PM, menno  wrote:
>
>
> Andres Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>> Are you subscribed to the dev list? Maybe we can continue this there...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Would you consider going to the IRC channel #csound?
>
> Menno
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676527.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 


Andrés

I think the python script install.py works well on Linux, so I guess  
you can try

sudo python install.py

and things should get installed. It might be worth adding  
'buildRelease=1' to your scons line, too.
Also: just beware that CVS versions are development ones and might not  
be completely stable at all times.

Victor



On 21 Feb 2010, at 14:31, menno wrote:

> and yes - it did build without errors. Great!
> Now i still have the old Csound installed but want to get rid of it.  
> And the
> latest version is in my Home. And i can run it from there.
> What is the convention to get Csound in the right place and not in  
> my home?

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> I guess it seems to me like finding an amazingly skilled guitar player
> in a small cafe and telling him he should play some Beyonce covers if
> he really wants to compete with all the other bands out there that are
> more accessible.

The analogy runs deeper. Your guitarist submitted to the existing UI of 
his instrument without substantial complaint, then he dedicated himself 
to countless hours of practice in order to achive mastery. How many new 
users of Csound will make the same committment to Csound ?

Btw, Chuckk: From here on in this message the "you" is the impersonal 
plural, so don't take anything personally. :)

The issue of just plain getting Csound to run on [your favorite OS here] 
is a different and more important matter. One doesn't get very far if 
one can't even get the program started, and I have no end of sympathy 
for users who can't get it running. I'm willing to help Linux users, but 
alas, I can't help with platforms I don't use. Perhaps some kind of 
pre-installation configurator or probe can be designed that will take 
stock of the target system and advise the user of missing dependencies 
and other potential problem spots specific to the installation of Csound 
? However:

>  There is no shortage of people who know what the
> Csound developers should do. But, not being a Csound developer myself,
> I can't speak for them.

I don't expect engine designers to also design the body of the car and 
its dashboard controls.

And that's 25+ years of engine design, folks. So yeh, Csound may not 
look like much at the command prompt, but it does indeed have wings and 
it can fly.

If the intention of a Csound front-end is to provide a universally 
accessible portal into Csound then yes, that job will require a 
dedicated design engineer. It's worth noting that Csound has probably 
more GUI front-ends than any other similar system, yet none enjoy 
universal acclaim across platforms or even among users of a single 
platform. This point underscores the need for someone who really knows 
their stuff about designing UIs.

A short list of Csound 
front-ends/controllers/environments/instrument-builders and their 
development status:

AlgoScore (current ?)
AVSynthesis (current)
blue (current)
Cabel (current ?)
Cecilia (in transit)
CSFE (limbo)
Csound_GUI (current)
Dex Tracker (current ?)
GeoMaestro (current)
ImproSculpt (current ?)
Lettuce (current)
Macsound (current ?)
Quasimodo (defunct)
Qutecsound (current)
Winsound (current)
WinXound (current)

Feel free to add to the list. You'd think that we'd be able to sort out 
the best characteristics from each of those apps and combine them into 
one killer front-end. Maybe so, but it'll take that design engineer to 
get it done right.

>  Seems to me they're refreshingly open to
> criticism, compared to the Rosegarden/Ardour developers I've had
> contact with.
>   

Our experience differs. I've found the Ardour and RG devs to be no less 
open to critique and suggestions than the Csound devs.

Btw, one respondent in this thread seemed to imply that a background in 
computer science was required to build, install, and use Csound. Many of 
us here have no such background and are doing just fine building, 
installing, and using Csound.

Look, if it's a PITA to try, then stop wasting your time and get back to 
making music with your familiar software. But if you've determined that 
Csound is indeed what you need then strap yourself in, buckle up, and 
prepare yourself for a potentially long and rugged ride. The road is not 
yet completely paved. But in addition to the front-ends listed above 
there are the many score generators such as athenaCL, nGen, Ceres, 
MUSES, psycops, Score11, Common Music, and so forth. Also, there are at 
least three books solely devoted to Csound and a boat-load of other 
Csound-specific information on the Internet. Oh, I forgot to mention the 
catalogs of instruments from the ACCCI collection, Dr. B, Ian McCurdy, 
and others listed at csounds.com and elsewhere.

Then there's the lamented curse of the creeping Linux mindset. Well, 
Csound was developed on UNIX systems, many of its chief devs continue to 
use UNIX in their professional lives, and there are some very good 
technical reasons for choosing Linux for Csound. I'm not slagging anyone 
else's choice of OS, these are just plain facts, there's no conspiracy 
here. As far as I know, among the Csound devs only Michael Gogins 
possesses intimate knowledge of Windows programming internals, and he's 
only one man with presumably limited time. Perhaps it's time for some 
Windows Csounders to start beating the bushes for a few more developers 
for their platform ?

And that's my two drachmas worth of personal opinion.

Best,

dp

I solved the problem by installing the 5.11 binary again, which worked except
for two issues:

That damn liblo.so.7 was missing again, but this time I discovered it in the
linux_d64/lib folder and simply copied it manually to /usr/lib. Don't know
why the installation script doesn't do that automatically.

And then, when trying to run Qutecsound, it complained about libcsnd.so.5.2
not available, and I couldn't install it via the Ubuntu package, because
this one depends on their Csound package, so I had to download the .deb,
untar it, and smuggle its content to /usr/lib. Hopefully such practice
doesn't put me into trouble later on...

Though, not all is sunshine and roses now, because Qutecsound developed some
strange bugs, one of which was that I could scroll down with the mouse will,
but couldn't scroll up, sort of eerie one-way experience, which now is gone,
but the other problem remaining, don't know if it's a known issue:

The Start RT button gives some completely crazy behavior, marks random lines
in the code with purple, says the file has been changed (although it hasn't)
when closing the program, and gives error messages like these: (But the same
programs run without problems with the RT in Terminal button.)

 *** error: unknown rtaudio module: 'PortAudio'

error:  no legal opcode, line 30:
i0 ftgen 2,0,is,2,0

error:  no legal opcode, line 121:
asig		pinkish	ivol
error:  input arg 'asig' used before defined, line 122:
		outch		ichn, asig

(the last one from Audio_Output_Test.csd, shipped with the program)




Andres Cabrera wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Packaging universally for linux is hard to get right, exactly because
> of the issues you mention. Since John, who prepares the installers
> builds on Suse (I think), the linux binaries are only guaranteed to
> run there without trouble (and only for the particular version he is
> using).
> 
> Reports might be useful to get things fixed, but it's very time
> consuming, and might even be impossible in some cases...
> 
> Building from Csound from source on linux is somewhat easier than on
> other platforms, so I'd recommend this for linux users who want more
> recent packages.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrés
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676876.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

My idea is that, after the homework is done and we have an installation
process that is as easy as people nowadays have the right to expect, (plus
an absence of bugs plus a presentable Qutecsound), that a good way to raise
Csound's market share would be the following:

To attract people who might be young, new to music-making, and not really
trained in software production, it might not be such a good idea to
advertise Csound as "a computer programming language for dealing with sound,
also known as a sound compiler or an audio programming language, or more
precisely, a C-based audio DSL" (Wikipedia), as "a programming language
designed and optimized for sound rendering and signal processing" (cSounds),
or "a sound and music synthesis system, providing facilities for composition
and performance" (sourceforge).

Young folks who hear such statements most likely turn away instantly,
because most of them haven't ever written a single line of code, and
therefore can't even conceive how pleasurable and fulfilling the activity of
inputting combinations of letters and numbers can be, of such combinations
of letters and numbers that the computer understands them and in return
rewards you with auditory and visual experience you never had before, which
you most likely can't get otherwise in this very manner, and which possibly
no one else amongst the whole human race has ever had in exactly this way,
besides you.

Furthermore, being able to write code is highly stimulating to the
intellectual properties of an individual, so it's a noble act towards
humanity if we try to distribute Csound further, but only very few would
undergo the demanding act of learning such a vast language because of
arguments like these, so it might be advisable to use some indirect way of
helping people to get in touch with our beloved sample processor.

Actually, if I had never heard of Csound before, and someone gives me a csd
that has some nice interface and which allows me to make music like a
program, I would start believing that the csd is the program and the
so-called Csound only is some piece of software this program depends on, not
much different to a Java interpreter or sorts like these, and also some
thing I don't really need to know much about, except the name, and how to
get it be present on my computer.

(You can even associate *.csd with Csound in the system settings, so that
double-clicking on the csd starts it automatically, like any other program.)

So, why not present a bundle of our finest csd's and distribute them as the
main thing, each of them specialized at a certain way of making music, and
also advertise them in places like Youtube (where you can see lots of
examples how Puredata or Supercollider programs look like and work, but  not
much about Csound).

?

The biggest problem I see here is that the user expects some interface with
menu bars, like every decent program nowadays has, but unfortunately there
is no possibility to do that with native Csound. I've been doing some things
lately with Haskell and gtk and hCsound, and it works fine, and would give
the possibility to make it look like any old program you wish, but the
result also would be so far away from the underlying engine that this one
wouldn't even be noticeable any more, and might get obsolete and replaced by
Haskell-native things one day.

Therefore, it should be more something that is closer to the audio itself,
and where some of the people who will be playing around with get interested
and look at the code, and then have some new idea they want to realize, and
finally learn how to write programs themselves.

Or am I wrong, and the Csound approach is only for professionals, and we
should simply ignore those who rather play and are unwilling to invest too
much effort into the proper arrangement of letters and numbers?

(#&) -> (§|) -> (!!!)




Jacob Joaquin wrote:
> 
> I'm with Greg and Jim on this one. The developers put all this time and
> effort into Csound. Though all this hard work is squandered if people are
> turned away from the difficulties of getting it up and running, or from a
> plethora of bugs, or from misinformation in the manuals, etc.
> 
> I've mentioned this before, if developer's took a break from developing
> for
> a year, and instead, focused on tightening up various loose ends, stomping
> out bugs, and making it easier to get it up and running, Csound would
> benefit across the board. And not just in terms of software, but in the
> community as well. This could attract more people to the platform, which
> could then lead to more volunteers working to improve both the language
> and
> the documentation, which could attract more users, and then more
> volunteers,
> etc.
> 
> The user experience really counts for something these days. Functionality
> alone won't cut it in the 21st century. Csound needs a vision, and a
> conceptual designer to guide it if it is going to compete with all the
> user
> friendly platforms the pop up over the next decade or two.
> 
> Best,
> Jake
> -- 
> The Csound Blog - http://csound.noisepages.com/
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jim Aikin 
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> gmschroeder wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Chuck,
>> > What's keeping me from fixing the problems myself is that I have
>> > taken exactly 5 formal classes on computers in my  life, and every
>> > last one of them involved 101-level instruction in an office or
>> > graphics suite for a commercial OS.
>> >
>> I'm with Greg on this one. I would have not a single clue how to compile
>> a
>> C
>> program in Windows 7. I mean, I'm sure I could do it if you held a
>> revolver
>> to my head and gave me a year or so to work out the details, but I'm not
>> competent in that area. Also, I'd need a compiler, which I don't have and
>> have no other need for.
>>
>> I do occasionally see a sort of Linux-is-the-only-real-OS mentality
>> creeping
>> into discussions of Csound. Windows and Mac users don't seem to get much
>> respect.
>>
>> While I fully sympathize with the limited resources of the developers in
>> an
>> all-volunteer development effort, I can't help wishing Csound was easier
>> for
>> Windows and Mac users (who are, of course, vastly in the majority) to
>> use.
>>
>> I mean, what's this megillah with PortAudio, for Pete's sake? None of my
>> other Windows programs sends data to PortAudio. It doesn't even exist,
>> except within Csound, and Csound doesn't know about my actual audio and
>> MIDI
>> drivers. That's as good an example as any.
>>
>> --Jim Aikin
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27671830.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676886.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

How about "Csound is EPIC WIN music software?"

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:55 PM, moleculeColony
 wrote:
>
> My idea is that, after the homework is done and we have an installation
> process that is as easy as people nowadays have the right to expect, (plus
> an absence of bugs plus a presentable Qutecsound), that a good way to raise
> Csound's market share would be the following:
>
> To attract people who might be young, new to music-making, and not really
> trained in software production, it might not be such a good idea to
> advertise Csound as "a computer programming language for dealing with sound,
> also known as a sound compiler or an audio programming language, or more
> precisely, a C-based audio DSL" (Wikipedia), as "a programming language
> designed and optimized for sound rendering and signal processing" (cSounds),
> or "a sound and music synthesis system, providing facilities for composition
> and performance" (sourceforge).
>
> Young folks who hear such statements most likely turn away instantly,
> because most of them haven't ever written a single line of code, and
> therefore can't even conceive how pleasurable and fulfilling the activity of
> inputting combinations of letters and numbers can be, of such combinations
> of letters and numbers that the computer understands them and in return
> rewards you with auditory and visual experience you never had before, which
> you most likely can't get otherwise in this very manner, and which possibly
> no one else amongst the whole human race has ever had in exactly this way,
> besides you.
>
> Furthermore, being able to write code is highly stimulating to the
> intellectual properties of an individual, so it's a noble act towards
> humanity if we try to distribute Csound further, but only very few would
> undergo the demanding act of learning such a vast language because of
> arguments like these, so it might be advisable to use some indirect way of
> helping people to get in touch with our beloved sample processor.
>
> Actually, if I had never heard of Csound before, and someone gives me a csd
> that has some nice interface and which allows me to make music like a
> program, I would start believing that the csd is the program and the
> so-called Csound only is some piece of software this program depends on, not
> much different to a Java interpreter or sorts like these, and also some
> thing I don't really need to know much about, except the name, and how to
> get it be present on my computer.
>
> (You can even associate *.csd with Csound in the system settings, so that
> double-clicking on the csd starts it automatically, like any other program.)
>
> So, why not present a bundle of our finest csd's and distribute them as the
> main thing, each of them specialized at a certain way of making music, and
> also advertise them in places like Youtube (where you can see lots of
> examples how Puredata or Supercollider programs look like and work, but  not
> much about Csound).
>
> ?
>
> The biggest problem I see here is that the user expects some interface with
> menu bars, like every decent program nowadays has, but unfortunately there
> is no possibility to do that with native Csound. I've been doing some things
> lately with Haskell and gtk and hCsound, and it works fine, and would give
> the possibility to make it look like any old program you wish, but the
> result also would be so far away from the underlying engine that this one
> wouldn't even be noticeable any more, and might get obsolete and replaced by
> Haskell-native things one day.
>
> Therefore, it should be more something that is closer to the audio itself,
> and where some of the people who will be playing around with get interested
> and look at the code, and then have some new idea they want to realize, and
> finally learn how to write programs themselves.
>
> Or am I wrong, and the Csound approach is only for professionals, and we
> should simply ignore those who rather play and are unwilling to invest too
> much effort into the proper arrangement of letters and numbers?
>
> (#&) -> (§|) -> (!!!)
>
>
>
>
> Jacob Joaquin wrote:
>>
>> I'm with Greg and Jim on this one. The developers put all this time and
>> effort into Csound. Though all this hard work is squandered if people are
>> turned away from the difficulties of getting it up and running, or from a
>> plethora of bugs, or from misinformation in the manuals, etc.
>>
>> I've mentioned this before, if developer's took a break from developing
>> for
>> a year, and instead, focused on tightening up various loose ends, stomping
>> out bugs, and making it easier to get it up and running, Csound would
>> benefit across the board. And not just in terms of software, but in the
>> community as well. This could attract more people to the platform, which
>> could then lead to more volunteers working to improve both the language
>> and
>> the documentation, which could attract more users, and then more
>> volunteers,
>> etc.
>>
>> The user experience really counts for something these days. Functionality
>> alone won't cut it in the 21st century. Csound needs a vision, and a
>> conceptual designer to guide it if it is going to compete with all the
>> user
>> friendly platforms the pop up over the next decade or two.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jake
>> --
>> The Csound Blog - http://csound.noisepages.com/
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jim Aikin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gmschroeder wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Dear Chuck,
>>> > What's keeping me from fixing the problems myself is that I have
>>> > taken exactly 5 formal classes on computers in my  life, and every
>>> > last one of them involved 101-level instruction in an office or
>>> > graphics suite for a commercial OS.
>>> >
>>> I'm with Greg on this one. I would have not a single clue how to compile
>>> a
>>> C
>>> program in Windows 7. I mean, I'm sure I could do it if you held a
>>> revolver
>>> to my head and gave me a year or so to work out the details, but I'm not
>>> competent in that area. Also, I'd need a compiler, which I don't have and
>>> have no other need for.
>>>
>>> I do occasionally see a sort of Linux-is-the-only-real-OS mentality
>>> creeping
>>> into discussions of Csound. Windows and Mac users don't seem to get much
>>> respect.
>>>
>>> While I fully sympathize with the limited resources of the developers in
>>> an
>>> all-volunteer development effort, I can't help wishing Csound was easier
>>> for
>>> Windows and Mac users (who are, of course, vastly in the majority) to
>>> use.
>>>
>>> I mean, what's this megillah with PortAudio, for Pete's sake? None of my
>>> other Windows programs sends data to PortAudio. It doesn't even exist,
>>> except within Csound, and Csound doesn't know about my actual audio and
>>> MIDI
>>> drivers. That's as good an example as any.
>>>
>>> --Jim Aikin
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27671830.html
>>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27676886.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"



-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:55 AM, moleculeColony
 wrote:
> ...
> Or am I wrong, and the Csound approach is only for professionals, and we
> should simply ignore those who rather play and are unwilling to invest too
> much effort into the proper arrangement of letters and numbers?

Except, Csound isn't used much by professionals either. Mostly just a
handful of educators and enthusiasts. It's a shame you won't find
software developer jobs asking for 'proficiency in Csound'.

Thorin

I'm sure this has been considered, but what about dividing the downloads page
into "latest stable release" and "beta" sections and promoting the latter to
the former after they've had, say, a few weeks in the wild?
John


Jacob Joaquin wrote:
> 
> I'm with Greg and Jim on this one. The developers put all this time and
> effort into Csound. Though all this hard work is squandered if people are
> turned away from the difficulties of getting it up and running, or from a
> plethora of bugs, or from misinformation in the manuals, etc.
> ....
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sloppy-packaging-tp27473586p27677091.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dave Phillips wrote:
> 
> Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
>> I guess it seems to me like finding an amazingly skilled guitar player
>> in a small cafe and telling him he should play some Beyonce covers if
>> he really wants to compete with all the other bands out there that are
>> more accessible.
> 
> The analogy runs deeper. Your guitarist submitted to the existing UI of 
> his instrument without substantial complaint, then he dedicated himself 
> to countless hours of practice in order to achive mastery. How many new 
> users of Csound will make the same committment to Csound ?
> 
Two other factors come into play here. First, you can get some sort of noise
out of a guitar simply by picking it up. There's a lot more in the way of
immediate positive feedback for the novice, in other words. Second -- guitar
heroes! Sex appeal! How many Csound heroes would you recognize if they
walked into a music store? How many babes do you suppose they get?


Dave Phillips wrote:
> 
> Then there's the lamented curse of the creeping Linux mindset. Well, 
> Csound was developed on UNIX systems, many of its chief devs continue to 
> use UNIX in their professional lives, and there are some very good 
> technical reasons for choosing Linux for Csound.
> 
It would surprise me to learn that very many people choose their OS because
of its ability to run any particular music program ... although that may
happen with a few people who buy a Mac so they can run Logic. I suspect,
then, that most people who choose Linux don't do so because it will give
them a better experience with Csound. I would expect that they choose Linux
first, and then happen to find that there's this thing called Csound. But
perhaps I'm wrong. I haven't taken a poll.

Also, I've seen a few posts lately from people who are using Linux and
having basic installation issues. So ... "very good technical reasons"? I'm
ignorant on the subject.

With respect to the general topic, though, I've changed my mind. I started
thinking about 1950s-era "modern jazz." This music was intended to be
esoteric. It was intended to be difficult to play and difficult for
listeners to understand. I would tend to conclude, then, that there's a
definite place in the world for electronic music systems that are not
user-friendly.

But I still think a better way of squashing the bugs prior to release of a
new version would be swell.

--Jim Aikin

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips  wrote:
> Chuckk Hubbard wrote:

>>  Seems to me they're refreshingly open to
>> criticism, compared to the Rosegarden/Ardour developers I've had
>> contact with.
>>
>
> Our experience differs. I've found the Ardour and RG devs to be no less open
> to critique and suggestions than the Csound devs.

I bet you didn't come at them with "What the hell are you talking
about? If you want to compete with the commercial apps you need to
make it work out of the box." Try that on them.

-Chuckk


-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

moleculeColony wrote:
> To attract people who might be young, new to music-making, and not really
> trained in software production, it might not be such a good idea to
> advertise Csound as "a computer programming language for dealing with sound,
> also known as a sound compiler or an audio programming language, or more
> precisely, a C-based audio DSL" (Wikipedia), as "a programming language
> designed and optimized for sound rendering and signal processing" (cSounds),
> or "a sound and music synthesis system, providing facilities for composition
> and performance" (sourceforge).
>   

But it's statements like this that made me try out CSound. After trying 
several others, where I felt that I have to little control of what 
happens, CSound finally gave me what I wanted. We should still attract 
people that want more power. On the other hand, like you said elsewhere, 
CSound may be an introduction to programming for other people, but not 
everyone is capable of learning that.
 
Actually, the first time I read about CSound, was in a comment in a 
discussion on Slashdot about another music application, in which someone 
said "I don't like CSound, because when I write music I don't want to 
program again". I guess that person was not a programming geek like me 
:-) but this argument against CSound is actually what made me very 
curious about it.

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips  wrote:
>   
>> Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>>  Seems to me they're refreshingly open to
>>> criticism, compared to the Rosegarden/Ardour developers I've had
>>> contact with.
>>>
>>>       
>> Our experience differs. I've found the Ardour and RG devs to be no less open
>> to critique and suggestions than the Csound devs.
>>     
>
> I bet you didn't come at them with "What the hell are you talking
> about? If you want to compete with the commercial apps you need to
> make it work out of the box." Try that on them.
>
>   

Like I said, our experience differs. Of course I've asked such 
questions. I asked them differently too.

Best,

dp



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"