After carefully evaluating the situation, I decided rather than carrying legacy bloat by forking PyDAW, I decided to write my next generation completely-conventional-DAW/soulless-Cubase-clone from scratch. For those that haven’t followed the project since it’s inception one-and-a-half years ago, this has been the evolution of the scope of the project:
1. It was only supposed to be a library and tools for developing DSSI plugins, because LV2 was still in alpha after 6 years of development, with no guarantee of ever seeing v1.0 (not that v1.0, or versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 that quickly followed were all that great anyways)
2. After realizing that there was a serious lack of DSP-savvy Linux developers writing original plugins rather than incestual re-packaging of old LADSPA plugins, I decide to go the extra mile and turn the library/tools into an actual suite of plugins, rather than risking another pointless hobbyist repo on Sourceforge with zero adoption
3. I then realize that the only Linux host capable of 100% stable DSSI hosting is the reference DSSI host (jack-dssi-host). After numerous back-and-forth bickering with various Linux audio developers who insisted that even though every other host failed in a completely different way, that it was somehow acceptable for a DSSI host implementation to be less resilient than the reference DSSI host, and that I should somehow “fix” my plugins in every host(when the format does not support even knowing which host is running it). I then write my own DAW (catering purely to electronic music) to host my plugins, and cast aside the rest of the “undeniably awesome” (according to the dozens of Linux audio users) existing ecosystem, spawning rumors that I was sent by Satan himself to cause discord in paradise. Meanwhile, I find my own dozens-strong group of supporters in the Windoze world, who say “Thank Gawd! Finally a developer who doesn’t turn a blind eye to the millions of Windows users who tried Linux audio, thought it was complete rubbish, and promptly reinstalled Windows! We are the 99.999999999% , lead us to the promised land!!!”
So, it makes sense to start with a clean code base, and a new, clean plugin format rather than carrying any DSSI-isms. This will mean that the current plugins won’t be moving to the new format, but it also gives a chance to use hindsight to write even better versions without the massive constraints DSSI imposes on the GUI… This will also somewhat cause development of PyDAW to slow down, but I’ll probably still be pushing out 1-3 updates a month to it until it hits complete and total maturity.
Interested in checking out the early Git repo? You can’t. I’ve decided to develop it privately, and not show it until it is in a very complete, polished, mature and stable state. Why, you ask? While some parts of it will most certainly be open source (the JD-Rack super-host, the plugin format, etc…), I may (or may not) make the DAW and some of the plugins commercial, but with demo versions and reasonable pricing. I will probably also offer the chance to crowd-fund the open sourcing of the code, for a yet-undecided sum of money. This opportunity will happen once every major version, ie: Kickstarter project to open source DAW-Next-v1, separate Kickstarter for DAW-Next-v2, etc…
Considering the current “Hello World” state that the code is in, I couldn’t begin to make an ETA. However, having already written a full DAW + plugin suite in 1.5 years already should make it clear that this isn’t a 5 or 10 year plan, and the prior end-to-end experience will only speed up the process. Having said that, since there will be no public Git or alpha/beta “preview” releases, I don’t plan on providing any status updates on development until I have a gold-certified, stable, production-ready .deb installer for sale in Ubuntu Software Centre and ready for mass-consumption…
To my detractors who claim to never have even tried PyDAW, but yet still take the time to read literally every word of every post I’ve made on pydaw.org and discuss them on forums and mailing lists all over the internet: If you’re so confident that Jack and LV2 are awesome, then it shouldn’t bother you that they’ll be having competition soon, so there’s no need to cite this blog post and whine about it across the internet. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that these people preach software freedom, but yet are intolerant of free speech when it comes to (valid) criticisms of Jack? If you have any doubts about Jack or LV2 or any of the existing DAWs or plugins, then I would strongly suggest giving it all you’ve got to fix the situation in the mean time, because I am coming for you, with the intent of dethroning Jack and LV2 with sane audio standards (you know, like the kind of sane standards that Windows and Mac audio have flourished under for decades while Linux audio people refuse to acknowledge that Jack and LV2 just might be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution).