wiki-user: Aatube

Now mostly on @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org . I use this account as a backup.

  • 8 Posts
  • 157 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 18th, 2023
  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoLinux@lemmy.ml•Audacity 4.0 beta lets you test its new (and much nicer) Qt interface
    1·
    12 days ago

    Ideally we would have something that’s more dehierarchized, but until someone figures out how to do that, all open source repositories have a group of maintainers (or some other name for those who have commit access) who need to (individually) approve of contributions. As it stands, open source is indeed shared effort, but shared effort that has to be approved by a member of a cabal. There’s a reason stewards are often called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life (which is indeed a slightly different concept, but hopefully you get my point that chief maintainers have lasting influence and power).

    It’s still much better than other levels (i.e. proprietary). When maintainers slog behind community PRs and wishes for too long and/or persistently screw them up, a critical mass of users leaving will build for alternatives created, accelerated by the fact that most of your project’s users are going to be enthusiasts accustomed to switching and upholding open source principles.

    In summary, yes, maintainers make decisions to make users (or some shared vision) happy and are supposed to backtrack when enough of the users object. This is true whether the change is antagonistic or not. What you said in your first paragraph is the opposite of that. (I guess my initial question was what do you think should be the reason to backtrack other than users aren’t happy. “Users are hurt” is the same thing as “Users aren’t happy”.)

    As for Audacity? It’s been four years with no attempts, so Tenacity doesn’t look like it’s going to pick up momentum. Until the next incident, Users won’t believe they’re being screwed (and I agree with them) and aren’t building that critical mass. (I also object that the opt-in telemetry PR was antagonistic.)

  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoLinux@lemmy.ml•Audacity 4.0 beta lets you test its new (and much nicer) Qt interface
    42·
    12 days ago

    the switch to New Audacity is easier for users from any other DAW (such as Protools, Logic, Ableton) than for Old Audacity users

    as an Old Audacity user I disagree with that. it is still extremely hard to use audacity as a DAW because it’s very much still a multitrack audio editor with some beat-based features and non-destructive effects. i don’t think clips were too hard to adjust to

    Musescore was changed from a fully offline app to one tightly integrated into an online ecosystem.

    I am also an old Musescore user. You would be a little right to talk about audio.com and pretty on the nail to talk about MuseHub but musescore.com absolutely not. musescore.com’s been a thing since 2010 (MuseScore was only founded 2008 and acquired 2017) with the “Save Online” feature. Hal Leonard sued this small project for storing copyvio scores back in the old '10s (and now Muse Group owns Hal Leonard). And it’s not like they’ve “integrated” it any more either; it’s just blumming uploading scores same as it always has been since 2010.

    look at MuseHub. those shiny new effects and mixing, we advertise them so much, they’re free, they’re groundbreaking, you have to use proprietary MuseHub. the entire Muse Sounds stack is proprietary. and even then you can still use MuseScore entirely offline to do anything it could do in 3.x (that’s pre-acquisition for those unfamiliar with MuseScore version numbers).