Ken Locarnini wrote:
> 
> Just to interject my 2 cents:
> > Having versions of Csound around that
> > people can't compile and modify themselves puts it in the same camp as
> > regular commercial software, where it can't compete and will ultimately
> > stagnate and die.
> This is so true.  Especially with the current crop of up-coming software
> CSound will suffer the same fate as the Amiga!
> Check out:
> www.seersystems.com     (Reality section)
> Also the new version of Cakewalk Pro Audio, and others like it, will
> support realtime effects and plugins from several manufacturors like Waves.
> Since these programs are easy to use people will use them even if they are
> not free.  One of the reasons CSound is so attractive is the price, but if
> the CSound group splinters...........

I believe I would continue to use Csound even if it is a commercial
product.
Csound is a programming language so it is not comparable with any
graphic-interface software at the present time. It has a flexibility
hugely above almost all commercial software. 
It is a software for advanced computer music composers and not for
recording-studios or audio-engineers.
The only way to overtake Csound power is writing sound algorythms
directly in C, C++ or Smalltalk. May be a new music programming language
with graphic interface will developed in the future. The Kyma system is
not free and requires a specialized hardware. Also I believe it is not
so flexible as Csound. What about "extended csound" user interface? Will
it be a graphic interface? Will it be a multi platform project? Will a
soft-only version of "extended Csound" be avalaible for free?

bye
-- 
Gabriel Maldonado

mailto:g.maldonado@agora.stm.it
http://www.agora.stm.it/G.Maldonado/home2.htm