| Re: [proaudio] ardour2 question |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] ardour2 question
- From: "Reuben Martin" <reuben.m@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:32:23 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dS/lk0krcMPp8q7amyU3vHkX//qyKP196HRyBqEibuDBjDF97aXty7cd506jNFq/uvaPgqJHZ1sqN0BDtdoqeYiFZtTHAvwRz7y7U9F/Tg44rUSLsDxGDfBBBGDz6G+x23kZUbO04JroK+4qWCxwuuiFX4rof67EPZRk/IR3z0k=
Ardour2 is not to be used for real work yet. There is still a lot of
work going on and it is still rapidly changing. Granted, it is looking
better and better all the time, but it is not, nor do the developers
claim it to be, in a stable condition. If you need to do real work,
use the latest 0.99 version.
-Reuben
On 9/6/06, krgn <k.gebbert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi List!
I wonder what other peoples experiences are with ardour2 these day, I
can get it compiled, yet it is extremely unstable/unreliable. Do other
people experience this too? I run ~x86 keyword, so maybe this might be
connected? What are your experiences in terms of stability?
Karsten