[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Mon Jan 9 18:07:11 CET 2006
ohoh, this sounds all too familiar...
apparently i am the only one who is working in a multiuser environment.
for me, you seem a bit arrogant when denying other people's needs. (but
i guess, this sounds arrogant too :-))
i mean, universities started using unix a long time ago, and even though
nobody is interested in a multi-user environment, today you (and you)
are using linux, os-X and what else which are based on that.
i mean, 640k are enough.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> because it breaks _my_ way of working with pd.
>> and even though i am probably the only one who is sharing one
>> home-directory with compiled externals across 4 different platforms,
>> i don't think it is valid to ignore this need. (like in: we don't
>> need a per-host pdrc-mechanism, since hardly anybody will use it)
>
> I think there is a very good chance that you are the only place doing
> this, plus there are easy workarounds. Going forward, the .pdrc is
> deprecated, so I don't think we should waste time supporting it. It
with "pdrc-mechanism" i was referring to a settings-mechanism rather
than the .pdrc-implementation.
i don't care whether my settings are stored in .pdrc or my registry, as
long as i can have a per-host setting and a per-user setting.
> would not be hard to write a script which will generate the various
> platform-specific conf files when given a common set of options. Then
do i understand you correctly, that i should regenerate my .pdsettings
each time i switch machines?
my workflow is: pd on machineA, ssh to machineB and pd there, leave both
instances running and walk to machineC to run pd there. switch between
the 3 machines randomly; start and stop pd at will.
please tell me, that this is the wrong way to use pd, and since i am the
only one who is doing so, it doesn't matter at all.
> Let's try to keep this clean. That's not possible if we try to cater
> to every possibility under the sun.
yep. thus i would suggest to use .dll as the only extension and w32 as
the only platform. we wouldn't have problems with "every possibility
under the sun" then.
this sounds very ridiculous.
mfg.af.
IOhannes
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list