LMMS?

[Kaj Ailomaa]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:13:20 +0200, Eric Hedekar <afterthebeep at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Holstein <mikeh789 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa <zequence at mousike.me> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:15:30 +0200, Scott Lavender  
>>> <scottalavender at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ho Wan Chan <smartboyhw at gmail.com>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>>
>>>>> In #ubuntustudio today somebody asked if we should add LMMS to it.
>>>>> I agree we need to since it is a crucial part of the system and it  
>>>>> takes only about 10 MB of disk space so...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW I talked to Nicholas Skaggs and the final decision was to dump  
>>>>> the manual partitioning and auto-resize testcases and only  
>>>>> >>>>>remain the entire disk one along with live session and the  
>>>>> forecoming post-installation testcases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks everybody
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Howard Chan (smartboyhw)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
>>>>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  
>>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think characterizing this as "a crucial part of the system" might  
>>>> be misrepresenting LMMS as I think Ubuntu Studio is quite  
>>>> >>>>functional in numerous use cases.
>>>>
>>>> We should also consider how many people are asking for LMMS. If we  
>>>> included every application asked for, we would easily oversize  
>>>> >>>>the 4gig image. I have been worried about making everyone  
>>>> download extra megs (oh, won't someone think of the bandwidth)  
>>>> because >>>>one person said we should include something.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not opposed to including it. I just want to make sure  
>>>> we evaluate the inclusion on it's own merits, that we are  
>>>> >>>>supported a complete work flow (i.e. there are no other  
>>>> applications needed to support getting the task done), and the user  
>>>> >>>>demand warrants inclusion.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to other's input.
>>>>
>>>> ScottL
>>>
>>> I think it's a valid addition.I know some people prefer this kind of  
>>> applications to Qtractor or Ardour.
>>> On their homepage they make reference to LMMS being a Linux  
>>> alternative to FL Studio. In my experience there are FL Studio people,  
>>> >>>and then there is the other kind.
>>> Don't use it myself, but I definitely think it fills a workflow hole  
>>> for a good portion of people.
>>>
>> i found LMMS to be crashy in 10.04... and i havent used it since  
>> really. if its stable and something that others want added, im OK  
>> >>with that. i always thought that even if it worked and was stable, my  
>> opinion was that it was "toy-ish"... we cant include >>*everything* and  
>> there are some key pieces of my workflow that are not installed that i  
>> have no issues with installing on my own. >>however, if someone wants  
>> to host a meeting, and "vote" on the inclusion of LMMS, i'll come and  
>> participate, and not vote it down, >>since i have no strong opinions  
>> other than it needs to be stable.
>>> --
>>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
>>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> --
>> MH
>>>> mikeholstein.info
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
>>
>
>
> This is certainly not the first discussion we've had about including  
> LMMS, and it probably won't be the last.  None of the past  
> >conversations have come to a conclusion that it should be included as  
> there are other more polished tools that complete the same or >similar  
> workflow.  LMMS has had stability issues in the past but maybe it's  
> outgrown these now.  My personal vote would be to include >it in the  
> 'suggested install' section and leave it off the actual disk.  It's  
> possible that reorganization of the workflows and meta >packages could  
> find a slot where LMMS fits perfectly, but I don't believe there's a  
> spot it would fill right now.
>
> -Eric Hedekar


I've had plenty of stability issues with Qtractor, while Ardour is lacking  
in midi capability.
lmms is not as complex, but does include builtin instruments. It's perfect  
for novice users, who have little experience in audio applications, as  
well as for anyone interested in the instruments it offers.
lmms is in fact the simplest tool to use if you quickly want to make some  
electronic music. Just drag and drop instruments, and start making music.  
So, I would argue that it does fill a workflow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-devel/attachments/20121003/ae4c931a/attachment.html>