Why isn't LMMS easier?

[Fladmay]

Why isn't LMMS easier ?
For example, why not delete several blocks with the delete key, or why not adjust the size of the global editor of the song (we only have access to 12.5, 50, 100, 200 or 400%) or why not have the possibility to edit a sample correctly in LMMS, like in FL. These are silly things but they would save a lot of time and in my opinion would make LMMS better. We hope to see these changes in the next stable version of LMMS !

[DJB]

Definitely something that needs to be done. I'm not a coder, so I wouldn't know where to begin when it comes to developing this, but they definitely need to be done!

[Incorruptable]

Why isn't LMMS easier ?
For example, why not delete several blocks with the delete key,

Thats one that to me seems would be relativity easy to add.

Reason i say that is you already have the ability to highlight and drag multiple blocks, copy and past multiple blocks, so i am guessing another alteration of the code would allow deleting of multiple blocks.

It has bugged me when i have gotten into making a song and realized i want to add in a variation to a sound, easiest and quickest way is to clone that instrument, when you clone it you have many blocks that you now want to delete but cant quickly.

[ArcaneAnomaly]

Compilation barriers are high relative to other programs where you compile from source. Thence, development barriers are high, so I suspect there is a core development team (consisting entirely of volunteers) that doesn't grow very often, and maybe even shrinks over time. I tried for 3 days in a row, several hours each day compiling on my machine that is running Bionic Beaver. I tangoed with cmake files and system configurations, etc, to no avail. I will take another stab at it by wiping my hard drive and reinstalling Bionic Beaver. From there, I'll only install LMMS dependencies one time each (I think I had multiple instances of QT installed), followed by compiling LMMS. I plan to document this by video and share it IF it works.

I think part of the reason my installation failed was due to multiple instances of dependencies as well as JACK audio installed for Guitarix, which forces me to start, then kill, and then restart pulse audio every time I boot my machine if I want to hear anything. The point being, my computer has been due for a clean wipe for awhile, and LMMS is just the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not a C++ coder, but have years of python experience and hope to use LMMS as my C++ learning opportunity. I doubt I'll make major contributions. I'll probably just fork the project to implement some UI/UX stuff that I want for it to be easier (I guess I'll see how straightforward this actually is).

[musikbear]

a core development team (consisting entirely of volunteers) that doesn't grow very often, and maybe even shrinks over time.

I honestly was not going to comment here, but your sentence kind of forced me.. so 100% correct!


What is missing from a viewpoint of a industrial developer, are usecases.
But that is rather difficult to setup, for something like LMMS
In a usecase, a total novice is placed with the program, and asked to used it!
Devs are looking over the shoulder, and notice where the novice has issues. Everything is often recorded.
This has to be done many times, and with many different users. That is what lead to understanding the usage-situation of software.

Its also mentioned
"why not multi-delete of blocks"
Because no-one in the voluntary dev-group has felt it was more important than removing real bugs!
In a factory project, a lead would go to a employee, and instruct that person to implement a feature!
That is not how LMMS is made!

Bottom line
You cant ask "why is this and that not done"?
Because every time the answer is: Because no-one has done it!

Remember !
LMMS is afaik -the ONLY project in the DAW family, that actually listen to its users, and DO implement features that is suggested!
That is unique for user-driven software development!

[Fladmay]

a core development team (consisting entirely of volunteers) that doesn't grow very often, and maybe even shrinks over time.

I honestly was not going to comment here, but your sentence kind of forced me.. so 100% correct!


What is missing from a viewpoint of a industrial developer, are usecases.
But that is rather difficult to setup, for something like LMMS
In a usecase, a total novice is placed with the program, and asked to used it!
Devs are looking over the shoulder, and notice where the novice has issues. Everything is often recorded.
This has to be done many times, and with many different users. That is what lead to understanding the usage-situation of software.

Its also mentioned
"why not multi-delete of blocks"
Because no-one in the voluntary dev-group has felt it was more important than removing real bugs!
In a factory project, a lead would go to a employee, and instruct that person to implement a feature!
That is not how LMMS is made!

Bottom line
You cant ask "why is this and that not done"?
Because every time the answer is: Because no-one has done it!

Remember !
LMMS is afaik -the ONLY project in the DAW family, that actually listen to its users, and DO implement features that is suggested!
That is unique for user-driven software development!

Yes, you're right, I didn't see it that way... it's just that these little details are quite annoying, and that's too bad, because I'm convinced that LMMS can perform as well as any other paid DAW and so-called "pro". I am a novice in this area, but I will do my best to improve the LMMS user experience.

[jimcollinz]

From my experience, LMMS is great but has some limitations, probably because it’s open-source and relies on community contributions. It’s not as polished as some other DAWs like FL Studio, where these things are more intuitive.

Since LMMS aims to be lightweight and cross-platform, adding these features might take more time or resources than the developers have right now. Hopefully, with enough feedback from users, these features will get added in future updates. If you're really missing these tools, maybe submitting feature requests could help get the attention of the devs.

[regulus]

For example, why not delete several blocks with the delete key

That's implemented in the nightly build, so it should be included when the stable build of 1.3 is released!

why not adjust the size of the global editor of the song (we only have access to 12.5, 50, 100, 200 or 400%)...

Zooming in the song editor has also been improved, so you can zoom in however much you want!

why not have the possibility to edit a sample correctly in LMMS, like in FL.

Well, editing samples is still in the works... but a knife tool has been implemented in the nightly build, and I'm planning on adding some more quality of life things in the future, like sliding the contents of a sample clip within the clip bounds, maybe changing the volume of clips, and maybe even crossfades.