Why would it be limited to ~ 100 connections on a 1-4 GB RAM server? Out of curiosity if we fork() httpd and exec() the cgi handler, it doesn't take the same RAM as the parent process and it could just take a few KB or MB, is that right? So I guess 1000+ concurrent connections even on a small server is possible.
I still use Office 2007 on my computer. Super super snappy, I think Word or Excel starts and finishes loading in 0.5 second after clicking the icon. It has 99% of the features I need compared to the newest Office version.
Same ... Office 2007 for the win. Frankly, i do not even use 90% of Office 2007 feature, so why do i even need more? For AI ... no.
And funny thing, barely uses any memory! Makes todays apps look like monsters. Even my music player uses 5x more memory while paused, then freaking Excel with multiple pages open.
Do you have a good way to run multiple versions of office? I do sometimes need some of the newer features but I'd like to default to using the older versions.
I still use Office 2007 on my computer. Super super snappy, I think Word or Excel starts and finishes loading in 0.5 second after clicking the icon. It has 99% of the features I need compared to the newest Office version.
I know what a WAV file is, and I've even made some electronic music myself.
Yet my brain errored out and for a while I thought you made samples of pipe organs: little mini-organs to take home with you, to try out before you buy the big one.
"Hello! Can I interest you in trying one of our sample organs?"
Very cool! I'd be curious what you think of Modartt's recent attempts at physical models of organs and how they compare to more traditional sampler approaches.
Not OP, but I've worked on programming my own organ software before. I'd say physical modelling really cool tech, but the question is whether it makes a significant auditory difference.
The thing is organs are a lot easier to sample compared to something like a violin. I'm oversimplifying, but it's mainly just note on, note off, vs lots of articulations where physical modelling is more beneficial. (Yes, there's wind sag, and wind delay, and regulators, but most organs specifically have things to avoid those artifacts so they'd only show up on more niche organs imo.) I've had great success simulating tremulants by just using FM demodulation to reconstruct the pitch and volume effects from tremmed samples[1]. Release samples are also difficult to match with the current phase, but I was also able to mitigate that with a single bin DFT + crossfaded.
Another issue with physical modelling is it's decently CPU intensive, which is tricky when you have 700 simultaneous notes on bigger organs. So, it's definitely cool, but the question is whether it's significantly better than current sample-based technology. It could potentially reproduce some of the more strange interactions, but those interactions aren't necessarily wanted in the first place.
EDIT: one thing that is nice about physical modelling is it's a lot easier to voice (modify) a pipe to the sound one wants. I think with some special filtering (comb filter for even harmonic attenuation, shelf for augmenting the harmonic series trajectory) voicing could also be satisfactory with traditional sampling (hauptwerk does some of this, but I think I could make it even more flexible).
Physical modeling seems to work really well for guitar/bass amplifiers. The Fractal Audio products are all based around simulating the various components of an amp and the ways they interact with each other, often with very unexpected results. They've been pushing in this direction for quite awhile, but I think it is more promising than capture-based tech ultimately.
The modeling is so accurate that it ends up replicating even the unintended side effects of amps, such as ghost notes (false notes being produced due to the power supply). The tech note explains it better than I can: https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/ghost-notes.126903/
From my experience with the piano one, the "tweaking the sound" aspect is where I've got the most out of it. Even just for awareness. But yeah, the physical modelling approach is probably better suited to something like piano with all its interacting resonances (and the way a tuner can change things around on a real piano).
Not the one you asked, but I have both Hauptwerk and Organteq, and the former beats the latter on everything expect cost, memory usage, start-up time. Organteq sounds artificial, and its reverb doesn't make it any better. Ok, you can tweak a lot, but the ensemble sound is unconvincing, and the registration choices are too limited.
I'm interested in your choice to focus on French organs. Do you specifically aim to focus on French organs and not those of German type? Or is it more like a matter of convenience due to geography?
I've done a similar tool a few years ago, with "contenteditable". It's great. Especially for non-tech people who want to quickly edit articles on a website. (that was an experiment).
The problem I had: when people copy/paste HTML from external sources, after a few edits, a few months later, you see that the HTML is just a horrible mix of various mixed up tags, the structure is lost, you have
<div><div><div><div><p><div>
everywhere and it's impossible to clean it in WYSIWYG.
OP, did you find a satisfying solution to this problem? A good compromise for sanitizing of copy/paste content? TL;DR: not remove the images, but clean the
"It's not recognized as Open Source by the Open Source body, and doesn't meet the criteria of Free/Open Source Software, but is Open Source" is a bit like saying "I used GMO and petroleum based pesticides, but my produce is all organic."
Why should words like "organic" in relation to food mean without pesticides? I mean all carbon and water based life forms are organic, right?
I can define Open Source easily, using the OSI definition.
There is not a trademark for Open Source because they failed to secure the trademark, but we have decades of use for the term meaning something specific.
This is wrong. CC is perfectly fine for software in some cases, such as here.
Ok, CC is not tailored specifically for software, thus the general advice "you should use something else" but I do not see why CC would not be suitable here to achieve OP's goals.
Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do
not contain specific terms about the distribution
of source code, which is often important to ensuring
the free reuse and modifiability of software.
Many software licenses also address patent rights,
which are important to software but may not be
applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally,
our licenses are currently not compatible with the
major software licenses, so it would be difficult to
integrate CC-licensed work with other free software.
Existing software licenses were designed specifically
for use with software and offer a similar set of
rights to the Creative Commons licenses.
Software licenses, especially the more "advanced" licences such as the GPL, MPL, and others include very specific language around the issue of what is use, what is distribution, what is is connecting to, derived works, and importantly, around patents.
The CC licenses do an amazing job when it comes to artistic work such as books, movies, music, etc. but you don't have the same issues there, and that's why even CC says that they don't recommend using them for software.
