Can you not host a current deb for Ubuntu?


I believe hosting a deb (or in some cases the apt:// handler which launches the app center) is a fantastic idea and is well needed.

I do [UA Switching] all the time too, both on my desktop and on my phone, where too many sites still embody this comic:


Thanks for the detailed response.  The cartoon about mobile sites is definitely a growing problem, and as a power user I struggle with mobile friendly sites at times too.

Luckily most of these mobile sites have a "desktop site" button, but that's probably less of an argument against a download button and more of one against a mobile friendly version of our site, which lends itself to more of a design decision on the whole site, whereas my proposal is just to do a quick update to the front page which seems to have gotten mixed reviews.

User agent spoofing is common enough that we should take it in account. 


I'd like to see some evidence in support of this claim. UA spoofing generally requires a 3rd party add-on installed in the browser.  It may be common for a handful of our developers, but our developers aren't necessarily using our home page to download the software, so the argument is still invalid.

there's been a lot of mentality lately to try to somehow shove the "Linux" part under the carpet, in some kind of fear of alienating windows users. I don't really know what to make of that. I think part of the problem is that many windows users just see LMMS as a "free replacement for FL studio"

This claim is preposterous.  You could make the same claim that people choose Ubuntu a free replacement for Windows or OSX.  You have NO RIGHT judging the motives of people's ability to choose.  You have no right making broad claims about the LMMS community's motives for involvement based on platform.  Furthermore, you do not know the lengths Stian, unfa, Uros have gone to increase involvement.  These type of words, such as "shove linux under the carpet" and "many windows users" are the very seeds in which plant discriminatory dialog.  Let's not take this dialog any further in this thread.

Let me educate you a little bit on our community:

Facebook is our primary medium for communication to our community.  It has about 1,200 followers and each update we make reaches approximately
 500 of those followers.

Stian (and others) have been working from a calendar to offer tips and also gather tips from the users.  These tips bring in more followers (such as shifting the entire song to the right) but inevitably brings Q&A.  Together Stian and myself along have answered dozens of help questions about the software (I'm sure other FB admins have too, but it's hard to tell).  Many questions come from Windows users. Many Windows questions eventually turn into dialog on this mailing list. The Top Songs competition has Windows users in it.  Many of these users care care enough about the longevity of LMMS to offer their projects and presets back to the community.  If you want to make a generalization of these users this mailing list is the absolute wrong place for it.

Each day we have a richer community because of the quality of this software and of it's community.

... Like the suggestion made a few times on this list to remove "Linux" from the name of LMMS, are very unwelcome

By who?  Toby named it and Toby has agreed to remove the name.  I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself on this matter.


I think we have a pretty solid divide between a fundamental assumption in site design... The use of JavaScript or not.  I've seen Johnathan recommend Bootstrap many times talking about redesigning the site, so if JavaScript is off the table (and I'm not sure who decides this) then it should be determined now.

The #1 rule to decide whether a site makes use of JavaScript or not is the site's users.  I would be conformable representing the vast majority of our site visitors and say that they do have JavaScript enabled.  (This assumption is due to the fact that the Facebook page doesn't work well without it).

If we vote to rule out JavaScript, I'm afraid LSP2 might hit some brick walls.

Either way, there seems to be enough resistance against the concept of this button that it would create an unnecessary divide.

I'd be happy to implement the rest of the proposal, given the proper access to the site, but as a larger conversation piece, the idea of utilizing the advancements in JavaScript should probably be hashed out prior to any major site redesign effort.  The web as I know it relies heavily on JavaScript and I wasn't aware there was this much push-back on the fundamental idea of using it, so for that, I'm sorry. :)