Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:slicehost (Score 1) 456

by Chris Cannam (#31227484) Attached to: Things To Look For In a Web Hosting Company?

I like slicehost for a number of reasons, but you have to be willing to use a command line because there is no GUI unless you install one (because you're getting a virtual server with full root access).

I currently use them, for the Rosegarden website among others (wonder whether I'll regret that link -- that's running on their most basic VPS package). The connectivity appears good and I like the command-line-only approach.

What's not so good is that they only offer 64-bit distros with relatively little RAM for the price, so you can run out very easily (or pay a lot).

Really though, whatever you do your best approach to ensure you can bring up the site anywhere at short notice without losing a significant amount of data. Run your own backups, manage the DNS elsewhere, and so on. If you can afford it, maintain another ready copy of the site at a different provider.

Chris

Comment: Re:Are you serious? (Score 1) 189

by Chris Cannam (#11135714) Attached to: Rosegarden Developers Interviewed by O'Reilly
Anyway, about feature requests: just make it your goal to have RG assume ALL of the features of the various other sequencer programs out there
Get real, these products have resources we'll simply never match.

The fact is, that would be a very poor goal. It's something we actively don't want to do, unless someone else is providing the resources to do it.

We have to balance the needs of quite a lot of different sorts of users. Matching all of the MIDI functionality found in Cubase may make an ideal program for some users, but if we spent all our time doing that, we'd be so behind on other features as to have a program that was useless for most of the people who want to use it now, including all of the developers who caused the project to happen in the first place.

This thread has so far followed the pattern of having one poster or another pronounce that Rosegarden "must" support feature X before it can even be considered 1.0, followed by Guillaume replying half-apologetically to say that we'd love to do that if we could find the time. The plain fact is that we've taken the decision that most of these things are not essential 1.0 features. And there's no reason we should apologise for that. You can disagree with particular instances -- clearly you do, and we'd encourage you to make feature requests with use cases so that we, and other developers, can take them into account when prioritising work in the future. But it's absurd to imply that a program isn't a worthwhile program at all because it doesn't do a particular feature that you personally want. That way lies madness, and/or Mozilla. Far better to accept that there is room for more than one program out there.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...