Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] more jack/qjackctl madness : some comments

Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> Stéphane Letz <[hidden]> writes:
>
>   
>> First we have to get a consensus on this "runtime choice of auto-start
>> strategy", then we'll have to find the best way to implement it.
>>     
>
> I was against mixed jack1/jack2 and i'm against the runtime choice
> now. IMHO it complicates things for user instead of simplifying it.
> It also complicates codebase and I think we can spend our efforts with
> something else instead. Still, if someone has the motivation to do
> runtime choice of auto-strategy - fine, i can live with it. The only
> important thing is that with jackdbus the default strategy must be
> autostarting through dbus. If it is not, by default jackdbus control apps
> will not work with jackdbus. Such setup will be pretty useless, eh?
>
>   


You will be isolating a whole lot of existing users by forcing a new 
paradigm on them before they are ready. Just look at Facebook for a good 
example of how this doesn't work.

I think jack devs have to put the effort into making the transition to a 
more flexible system as subtle as possible rather than smacking people 
round the head with it.




> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
> Jack-Devel mailing list
> [hidden]
> http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
>   

1242737890.27198_0.ltw:2,a <4A12AD0D.3060101 at boosthardware dot com>