Hi,

Well, I don't care having the final word (what for?), this could go on for
a long time, each one thinking he's the one who's right. Truth is that I
use Blender not because I'm particularly fond of 3D modeling (I'm not),
but because I have a project where using some 3D modeling makes sense, and
because I've learnt some basics about Blender at University (yes, it's
pretty much widespread in schools), and just because I'm felling
comfortable with it and I can work fast enough with it. That's all. I'm a
noob and fine with it ;-)

> The finished work is judged, not your
> choice of software.

Here we entirely agree :-)

> So there is no
> basis for advocacy of its use unless you enjoy proving your leetness to 12
> year olds on internet forums.

I'm not advocating it (what for? There's plenty of software out there,
just pick the one you like), it's just that I think that saying it's
obscure and deliberately hard in order to be "leet" is judging it a bit
too fast. I'll not argue, I've got things to do ;-) What's more important
after all? Mastering a complex tool and produce an absolutely stunning
eye-candy thing, or do what you like and try to share it, no matter the
complexity and the "leetness" ? The latter is was I call art.


> To that end, the idea of Dynebolic was to
> empower people without access to the latest tech a microphone and a
> soap-box.[...] Isn't the point about giving people
> accessibility to self-expression?

Self-expression with free software, yeah :-) Isn't it an hacktivist distro ?

>
> As for the PureData, the technology for music production no matter how far
> it advances will not help anyone who doesn't have talent. This is why I
> keep
> saying you should consult at KVR audio - the musicians really need an
> unobtrusive, easy-to-use very powerful all-in-one DAW. The music has its
> own
> formal theory, and has been handed down from ancient civilisations and
> before. It will not get any better by putting more barriers in the way of
> inspiration (which comes very fast and which can't be held in the mind and
> processed with rational abstract thought such as required to model an OOP
> program just to capture what's in the wind). It just doesn't work like
> that.

I support that :-) But what can Dynebolic do about it?

Regards,
MilkaJinka