Ok, so the last thing I wanted to do was start a flame war, and I am
sorry to say that I fanned the flames a bit myself (apologies to Olaf).
But there is a common thread and that is that many of us would love to
make a living working on Pd. But what I think would be very productive
is an honest discussion about how we could do this. There are two
basic ideas: commericializition and strange, newfangled free software
methods.
There are two ways I see of commercializing Pd: making a proprietary
program based on the BSD codebase; or selling free software like
RedHat, SuSe, IBM, etc. do. Personally, I do not think that the
proprietary path would work with Pd for a number of reasons: its a
crowded market space and most of the cheap development gains from it
being free software would be lost (AFAIK, most of the code besides
Miller's is GPL'ed). But I do see some promise in the RedHat-style
packaging and selling of free software. But either way, it would
probably take a lot of capital to get going, and that is the tough
part: we are basically all broke musicians/artists/etc.
Then there are the newfangled free software methods: donations and
bounties for specific projects. There are examples of both of these
working. Donations seem to be flowing more for art/music projects (ie.
the online movie example I gave earlier) and project bounties have a
decently long track record, starting with the FSF being contracted by a
number of CPU makers to port gcc their CPU. Or you could go further
back, to the pre-commercial software days, ie before Microsoft, Apple,
etc., when this was the standard way that software was written.
(Unfortunately the U.S. military was doing the majority of the paying
back then). http://www.sourcesupport.org looks like a well thought out
model.
None of these are guaranteed to work and they all have pitfalls. It
seems to me that the project bounties idea has the lowest cost of
entry, in terms of capital, hours of time needed to set it up, and time
devoted to organizing a fair method of disbursing the money. Also,
there could be all of these things going on at the same time, there is
no reason why that couldn't happen.
.hc
There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
-A.J. Muste
I am not sure that even if you where to package PD that you would have an easy job making a living - you would be competing head on with Cycling '74 and I am not convinced that the market space is that big.
IF I was trying to make money out of PD (something I don't really think is possible) My approach would be the services model (see Jboss as one of the really sucessful companies using this model). Basically build installations/projects etc. based around PD. Audio visual installations in corporate lobbies, things for conferences and trade shows. PD would give you a real edge against the guys trying to build custom code for these things or using things like flash. You also stand a fair change of charging a decent price for these things.
cheers
mark
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-admin@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin@iem.at] On Behalf Of Hans-Christoph Steiner Sent: 29 January 2004 16:52 To: pd-list@iem.at Subject: [PD] earning a living coding Pd
Ok, so the last thing I wanted to do was start a flame war, and I am sorry
to say that I fanned the flames a bit myself (apologies to Olaf).
But there is a common thread and that is that many of us would love to
make a living working on Pd. But what I think would be very productive is
an honest discussion about how we could do this. There are two basic ideas:
commericializition and strange, newfangled free software methods.
There are two ways I see of commercializing Pd: making a proprietary program based on the BSD codebase; or selling free software like RedHat, SuSe, IBM, etc. do. Personally, I do not think that the proprietary path would work with Pd for a number of reasons: its a crowded market space and most of the cheap development gains from it being free software would be lost (AFAIK, most of the code besides Miller's is GPL'ed). But I do see some promise in the RedHat-style packaging and selling of free software. But either way, it would probably take a lot of capital to get going, and that is the tough part: we are basically all broke musicians/artists/etc.
Then there are the newfangled free software methods: donations and bounties
for specific projects. There are examples of both of these working.
Donations seem to be flowing more for art/music projects (ie.
the online movie example I gave earlier) and project bounties have a
decently long track record, starting with the FSF being contracted by a
number of CPU makers to port gcc their CPU. Or you could go further back,
to the pre-commercial software days, ie before Microsoft, Apple,
etc., when this was the standard way that software was written.
(Unfortunately the U.S. military was doing the majority of the paying back
then). http://www.sourcesupport.org looks like a well thought out model.
None of these are guaranteed to work and they all have pitfalls. It seems to me that the project bounties idea has the lowest cost of entry, in terms of capital, hours of time needed to set it up, and time devoted to organizing a fair method of disbursing the money. Also, there could be all of these things going on at the same time, there is no reason why that couldn't happen.
.hc
There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
-A.J. Muste
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
Hi all,
my two bytes:
mark wrote:
I am not sure that even if you where to package PD that you would have an easy job making a living - you would be competing head on with Cycling '74 and I am not convinced that the market space is that big.
The consumer/commercial music software market is very crowded right now, and PD would need a *lot* of work to play in that field. Espc judging from amount of high-quality documentation in Max/MSP, and the fact that they *still* get an insane amount of really stupid RTFM questions on their list just due to the fact that people pay for it, and they also think that they pay for somebody to do their reading for them.
My approach would be the services model (see Jboss as one of the really sucessful companies using this model). Basically build installations/projects etc. based around PD.
I, like many many others, really feel like trying to commodifiy digital information is like selling sand in the Sahara. Whether it is digital music, software code, text articles or any other digital product of one's intellectual labor, I think the money-making emphasis should be on customization and personal appearence rather than mass-market product. I was recently speaking with a rather well-known experimental laptop artist who confided that all of his money comes from concerts and lectures. Any CD sales merely fund the production of the next release.
Several PD coders I know, to take the customization angle, have solid careers as "ghost programmers" for composers. The software already exists, but the composer is more interested in the idea than the technical realization, and these "ghosts" often make absolutely sublime work under these circumstances. Similar scenerios can be envisioned for theatre or dance groups as well as composers and more "traditional" musicians.
On the commercial project level, PD [+ Linux!] still makes sense over Max/MSP/Jitter/Nato/AuVi or whatever because there are no restrictive licenses to deal with, and the type of hardware it can run on is also less restrictive. If I am commissioned by somebody to make an audiovisual installation using PD/GEM/PDP, for example, the overhead costs will be substantially lower in terms of hardware and software than with "those other" apps. Basic business sense tells us that lower overhead = higher profit... But this is a well-known fact about free software, which can be applied to any field of computer technology, so I won't harp on it too long here.
As for the personal-appearence tip, I myself don't exactly make a living off PD [yet], but I do get to travel, meet people and even pick up some cash now and again from workshops, installations and performances. The workshops angle is very interesting. Every time I turn around, there is somebody wanting some instruction in PD. If it is a group or an institution, they can usually find some money for this purpose. I even get to perform more often by putting a gig in the rider for my workshops ;-) If this were just another commercial software, I simply wouldn't do this. I often tell people that Cycling '74 should pay them for every Max/MSP or Jitter workshop they do, because those folks are the front line of C74's marketing campaign!
Lastly, and just as importantly, I also try to support other developers in the community whenever I can by offering them chances to do workshops as well. In this way, we can all support each other rather than try to squeeze nickles and dimes from each other's hard work.
Maybe this gets some heads turning? Best, Derek
On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 16:30 America/New_York, derek holzer
wrote:
Hi all,
my two bytes:
mark wrote:
I am not sure that even if you where to package PD that you would
have an easy job making a living - you would be competing head on
with Cycling '74 and I am not convinced that the market space is that big.The consumer/commercial music software market is very crowded right
now, and PD would need a *lot* of work to play in that field. Espc
judging from amount of high-quality documentation in Max/MSP, and the
fact that they *still* get an insane amount of really stupid RTFM
questions on their list just due to the fact that people pay for it,
and they also think that they pay for somebody to do their reading for
them.
This is where I think the Redhat/Cygwin model could work. People who
want support can pay for a neatly packaged piece of software that has a
phone number that they can call and get someone to ask questions. As
the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will only
become more and more feasible.
.hc
My approach would be the services model (see Jboss as one of the
really sucessful companies using this model). Basically build
installations/projects etc. based around PD.I, like many many others, really feel like trying to commodifiy
digital information is like selling sand in the Sahara. Whether it is
digital music, software code, text articles or any other digital
product of one's intellectual labor, I think the money-making emphasis
should be on customization and personal appearence rather than
mass-market product. I was recently speaking with a rather well-known
experimental laptop artist who confided that all of his money comes
from concerts and lectures. Any CD sales merely fund the production of
the next release.Several PD coders I know, to take the customization angle, have solid
careers as "ghost programmers" for composers. The software already
exists, but the composer is more interested in the idea than the
technical realization, and these "ghosts" often make absolutely
sublime work under these circumstances. Similar scenerios can be
envisioned for theatre or dance groups as well as composers and more
"traditional" musicians.On the commercial project level, PD [+ Linux!] still makes sense over
Max/MSP/Jitter/Nato/AuVi or whatever because there are no restrictive
licenses to deal with, and the type of hardware it can run on is also
less restrictive. If I am commissioned by somebody to make an
audiovisual installation using PD/GEM/PDP, for example, the overhead
costs will be substantially lower in terms of hardware and software
than with "those other" apps. Basic business sense tells us that lower
overhead = higher profit... But this is a well-known fact about free
software, which can be applied to any field of computer technology, so
I won't harp on it too long here.As for the personal-appearence tip, I myself don't exactly make a
living off PD [yet], but I do get to travel, meet people and even pick
up some cash now and again from workshops, installations and
performances. The workshops angle is very interesting. Every time I
turn around, there is somebody wanting some instruction in PD. If it
is a group or an institution, they can usually find some money for
this purpose. I even get to perform more often by putting a gig in the
rider for my workshops ;-) If this were just another commercial
software, I simply wouldn't do this. I often tell people that Cycling
'74 should pay them for every Max/MSP or Jitter workshop they do,
because those folks are the front line of C74's marketing campaign!Lastly, and just as importantly, I also try to support other
developers in the community whenever I can by offering them chances to
do workshops as well. In this way, we can all support each other
rather than try to squeeze nickles and dimes from each other's hard
work.
Maybe this gets some heads turning? Best, Derek
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ---Oblique Strategy # 130: "Question the heroic"
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
"Information wants to be free." -Stewart Brand
"This is where I think the Redhat/Cygwin model could work. People who want support can pay for a neatly packaged piece of software that has a phone number that they can call and get someone to ask questions. As the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will only become more and more feasible.
.hc"
The thing is that is *exactly* the space that C74 occupy. PD's big differentiator is that its less developed as a "product" (in the proper comercial sense of the word) and more open - a work in progress guided by some extremely talented people but open to a strong community.
I've looked at Max/MSP and I've even got a pirate copy but I don't use it because PD suits my needs much more. While I like the slick interface in Max/MSP I much prefer to be able to role up my seleves and change things to work the way I want in Pd - and to be able to come here and ask questions.
I personally feel that making a living in the PD space would be very difficult. (if you wonder what my experience for saying this is you can check my cv out at my new software site http://www.pagefall.com). Derek seems to have made inroads into a service based offering around PD and that is one possible road. The other of course is to use PD as a prototyping tool and generate a new soft synth or processor or something. However this is also a very crowded market place and there are a lot of "hobbyist" players who haven't got to earn an actual living from their work despite some very high quality offerings.
I'm not trying to be negative here - if you want to make a living from something then you need to be realistic about what is viable and what is not.
cheers
mark
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is where I think the Redhat/Cygwin model could work. People who want support can pay for a neatly packaged piece of software that has a phone number that they can call and get someone to ask questions. As the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will only become more and more feasible.
it's the same as jmax ... iirc, you can pay 500 bucks for support, some externals, access to a forum ... or download it (although i don't know which licence it's using)
cheers...
Tim mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 -- The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!" Jack Kerouac
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Tim Blechmann wrote:
it's the same as jmax ... iirc, you can pay 500 bucks for support, some externals, access to a forum ... or download it (although i don't know which licence it's using)
jMax is copyleft (GPL).
However some externals are payware, though I've never used/seen any of them.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
Tim Blechmann wrote:
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is where I think the Redhat/Cygwin model could work. People who want support can pay for a neatly packaged piece of software that has a phone number that they can call and get someone to ask questions. As the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will only become more and more feasible.
it's the same as jmax ... iirc, you can pay 500 bucks for support, some externals, access to a forum ... or download it (although i don't know which licence it's using)
and this is why IRCAM is not considered as a contributor to free software in my eyes ( ouch ).
it's not ideology and the services model is perfectly alright ( i actually get some benefit from it ), some objects have also been developped for a project than made available for free to me: "the means of production must be free of charge to be accessible to all workers around the world" ( ahah, how naive i am )..
sum-up : it's perfectly oke to be commissioned to develop some tools for a project, but then they should be published for free, well, if you want to share anything. that's why speaking of the "price of pd" is really upsetting me.
ciao, sevy
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:14:58PM -0500, Yves Degoyon wrote:
that's why speaking of the "price of pd" is really upsetting me.
There's no problem with people asking a price for their work on pd, as long as they agree with the principles of free software. Everything has a price, and zero is a valid number. -- Marc
On Thursday 29 January 2004 22:40, Hans-Christoph Steiner said: :: On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 16:30 America/New_York, derek holzer
As :: the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will only :: become more and more feasible. :: :: .hc ::
Your search - "market for media art" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
de/
On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 10:45 America/New_York, delire wrote:
On Thursday 29 January 2004 22:40, Hans-Christoph Steiner said: :: On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 16:30 America/New_York, derek holzer
As :: the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will
only :: become more and more feasible. :: :: .hc ::Your search - "market for media art" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords.
de/
Its not a market in the gallery/store sense so much, but I was just
working at the Lille2004 festival and there was millions of Euros being
spent on media art. The whole festival budget is something like 100
million Euros. Some of the individual art groups had budgets well over
100,000 Euros. I think Graz03 spent more last year. That's where the
market mostly is, grants, commissions, and festivals.
.hc
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away
to benefit those who profit from scarcity."
-John Gilmore
Its not a market in the gallery/store sense so much, but I was just
working at the Lille2004 festival and there was millions of Euros being
spent on media art. The whole festival budget is something like 100
million Euros. Some of the individual art groups had budgets well over
100,000 Euros. I think Graz03 spent more last year. That's where the
market mostly is, grants, commissions, and festivals.
anything like this exist in the united states? it seems media-oriented arms of academic institutions and the like in the US have laregely shifted towards being eitger r&d grounds for corps working on projects that have near-term commercialization potential (not only 'medialab' type places but also indie filmmaking, beacuse once you get somethind good, theres nothing left for the corp to do besides distro/marketing..), or alternately, technical training w/ little emphasis on the creative aspect (fullsail type places for sound/video, or 3d-for-gaming/movies). dont want to sound pessimistic, but perhaps i just havent been looking in the right places..and of course to not veer completely off topic into whether euros see the value in supporting culture where american just sees the bottom line, pd would perhaps fit into this latter mindset due to its startup cost and ability to run just about anywhere..
....
really i think this whole question is quite stupid. if you want to make money coding in PD or proce55ing or lisp or python then get a business card and try and meet people with intelligent haircuts. this is as much anyone's 'business' as your favourite breakfast cereal. may a thousand golden cats smile at you.
as for the media arts funding, this is from where my (and many others on this list) primary income derives; grants, research funding and performances. however, the 'media market' you speak of is not centred around point of sale goods and rarely is it even software services. work (digital artifacts or softwares) are not bought and sold. instead an artist is paid to present or show in a given festival.
put simply, if you want to get paid for coding in Pure Data then get funding for your favourite project, become a musician that people actually care about, or work for an institution that cares enough to pay for your ideas.
like the good ol' days before the copyright FUD, recording artists made income not from record sales but from concerts. strangely the microeconomics of the 'media arts scene' has been this way since it's conception.
less money is spent on software by media artists than painters on paint. this may be BS, if so prove it to me (& design companies don't count). typically artists themselves don't buy software, though often they will pay for a developer or consultant to assist in production.
secondly the media artist is usually already the developer; making the software is part of creating the work itself. it's all part of the fun.
keep kool til after skool,
de/
On Friday 30 January 2004 22:34, Hans-Christoph Steiner said: :: On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 10:45 America/New_York, delire wrote: :: > On Thursday 29 January 2004 22:40, Hans-Christoph Steiner said: :: > :: On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 16:30 America/New_York, derek :: > :: holzer :: > :: > As :: > :: > :: the market for media art and the like grows, I think this will :: > :: > only :: > :: > :: become more and more feasible. :: > :: :: > :: .hc :: > :: > Your search - "market for media art" - did not match any documents. :: > :: > Suggestions: :: > :: > - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. :: > - Try different keywords. :: > - Try more general keywords. :: > :: > de/ :: :: Its not a market in the gallery/store sense so much, but I was just :: working at the Lille2004 festival and there was millions of Euros being :: spent on media art. The whole festival budget is something like 100 :: million Euros. Some of the individual art groups had budgets well over :: 100,000 Euros. I think Graz03 spent more last year. That's where the :: market mostly is, grants, commissions, and festivals. :: :: .hc :: :: ________________________________________________________________________ :: ____ :: :: "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are :: deliberately throwing it away :: to benefit those who profit from scarcity." :: -John Gilmore :: :: :: _______________________________________________ :: PD-list mailing list :: PD-list@iem.at :: http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
I think the question is not stupid because there are, like you say,
many on this list who do earn their living doing media art. But for
those of us not fortunate enough to be in that position, we would like
to learn from your experience. And unfortunately, making great or
music art is not enough.
I brought up this whole issue because I have been following free
software for 10 years, wondering whether it would actually become a
sustainable model. Now that is has, I was thinking, well maybe this
model can apply to the arts too.
.hc
On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 20:16 America/New_York, delire wrote:
really i think this whole question is quite stupid. if you want to
make money coding in PD or proce55ing or lisp or python then get a business card
and try and meet people with intelligent haircuts. this is as much anyone's 'business' as your favourite breakfast cereal. may a thousand golden
cats smile at you.as for the media arts funding, this is from where my (and many others
on this list) primary income derives; grants, research funding and
performances. however, the 'media market' you speak of is not centred around point
of sale goods and rarely is it even software services. work (digital artifacts
or softwares) are not bought and sold. instead an artist is paid to
present or show in a given festival.put simply, if you want to get paid for coding in Pure Data then get
funding for your favourite project, become a musician that people actually care about, or work for an institution that cares enough to pay for your
ideas.like the good ol' days before the copyright FUD, recording artists
made income not from record sales but from concerts. strangely the microeconomics
of the 'media arts scene' has been this way since it's conception.less money is spent on software by media artists than painters on
paint. this may be BS, if so prove it to me (& design companies don't count).
typically artists themselves don't buy software, though often they will pay for a developer or consultant to assist in production.secondly the media artist is usually already the developer; making the software is part of creating the work itself. it's all part of the fun.
keep kool til after skool,
de/
On Friday 30 January 2004 22:34, Hans-Christoph Steiner said: :: On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 10:45 America/New_York, delire wrote: :: > On Thursday 29 January 2004 22:40, Hans-Christoph Steiner said: :: > :: On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 16:30 America/New_York, derek :: > :: holzer :: > :: > As :: > :: > :: the market for media art and the like grows, I think this
will :: > :: > only :: > :: > :: become more and more feasible. :: > :: :: > :: .hc :: > :: > Your search - "market for media art" - did not match any
documents. :: > :: > Suggestions: :: > :: > - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. :: > - Try different keywords. :: > - Try more general keywords. :: > :: > de/ :: :: Its not a market in the gallery/store sense so much, but I was
just :: working at the Lille2004 festival and there was millions of Euros
being :: spent on media art. The whole festival budget is something like
100 :: million Euros. Some of the individual art groups had budgets
well over :: 100,000 Euros. I think Graz03 spent more last year. That's
where the :: market mostly is, grants, commissions, and festivals. :: :: .hc :: ::
_______________________________________________________________________ _ :: ____ :: :: "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we
are :: deliberately throwing it away :: to benefit those who profit from scarcity." :: -John Gilmore :: :: :: _______________________________________________ :: PD-list mailing list :: PD-list@iem.at :: http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
"Information wants to be free." -Stewart Brand
The label "delire" hathe been affixed to this message,
as for the media arts funding, this is from where my (and many others on this list) primary income derives; grants, research funding and performances. however, the 'media market' you speak of is not centred around point of sale goods and rarely is it even software services. work (digital artifacts or softwares) are not bought and sold. instead an artist is paid to present or show in a given festival.
Custom systems would probably qualify as an art form.
If one were to set up a lisp audio workstation {something like Kyma... and featuring pd, cm, snd, osw, stk, etc, etc and maybe base it on gnustep and musickit as well} one could probably get fine art prices for it.
like the good ol' days before the copyright FUD, recording artists made income not from record sales but from concerts. strangely the microeconomics of the 'media arts scene' has been this way since it's conception.
huh?
less money is spent on software by media artists than painters on paint. this may be BS, if so prove it to me (& design companies don't count). typically artists themselves don't buy software, though often they will pay for a developer or consultant to assist in production.
Last time I bought a tube of paint... Winsor Newton cadmiums were going for ~$50 a tube. ...Linen can run up to hundreds for a yard... figure an easy $50 for a standardish stretcher... I've gone through an entire tube of cad red on many paintings and I don't paint all that heavily. Winsor Newtons not, by any means, the most expensive paint {you can spend hundreds a tube... I've spent $90 a tube for colors.} Decent brushes can run you a couple of hundred apiece { http://www.dickblick.com/zz052/98a/products.asp?param=0&ig_id=6275 again... not the most expensive.} and I can easily burn up a new bright on one painting...
See these tears so blue. An ageless heart that can never mend. Tears can never dry. A judgement made can never bend. ... And I've been putting out fire with gasoline... {Dave}
Hi,
I've recently aquired a Dell Laptop and it occurred to me that the touch pad would make a nice input device. However on further investigation using "mousestate" I see that it only outputs deltas (like a real mouse) rather than an absolute position.
What I would like is when I press in the bottom left to get (0,0) and in the top right (100,100) (or similar).
Does anyone know if this is possible or is the actual hardware wired to act like a mouse.
cheers
mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
the linux kernel 2.6 and windows xp (don't know about others) support absolute mode touchpads and touchscreens.
mark wrote: | Hi, | | I've recently aquired a Dell Laptop and it occurred to me that the | touch pad would make a nice input device. However on further | investigation using "mousestate" I see that it only outputs deltas | (like a real mouse) rather than an absolute position. | | What I would like is when I press in the bottom left to get (0,0) and | in the top right (100,100) (or similar). | | Does anyone know if this is possible or is the actual hardware wired | to act like a mouse. | | cheers | | mark | | | _______________________________________________ | PD-list mailing list | PD-list@iem.at | http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list | |
"¢@æ^
There is a "synaptics" external floating around. Check the archives.
David . . David McCallum . Music wants to be free . http://sintheta.org .
mark wrote:
Hi,
I've recently aquired a Dell Laptop and it occurred to me that the touch pad would make a nice input device. However on further investigation using "mousestate" I see that it only outputs deltas (like a real mouse) rather than an absolute position.
What I would like is when I press in the bottom left to get (0,0) and in the top right (100,100) (or similar).
Does anyone know if this is possible or is the actual hardware wired to act like a mouse.
cheers
mark