Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] icky low level linux stuff
From: Graham Percival (gperlist_AT_shaw.ca)
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 06:30:48 EEST
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 14:35:14 +0200
Mitch Pirtle <lists_linuxaudiousers_AT_spacemonkeylabs.com> wrote:
> First off, I don't understand why everyone else on the Internet seems
> to get along with simply putting "newbie" in the subject line --- but
> here in linux audio land that's just not acceptable. If a newbie asks
> a question, I suppose that even if he mentions his newbie status that
> he'll get the useless-for-a-newbie answer... Sad.
Eh? I haven't noticed that on lau, although I tend not to read newbie
questions(since most newbie questions are already answered in HOWTOs and
FAQs or they involve things I don't know about). I'm certain that many
newbies ask questions without identifying themselves as newbies, and
then get a fairly unhelpful answer.
> It should be plain and simple: if you see "newbie" in the subject,
> please don't just reply with a microsoft answer (correct-but-useless)
I don't think that anybody would argue with this.
> like "Oh, you need the low latency patch" or worse, "you need the
> LLP".
Here's one specific answer that _has_ cropped up on LAU. I don't think
the problem is us; I think the problem is that (for good and sound
technical reasons, I'm sure) LLP isn't included in the distros' kernels.
We don't like saying "your version of linux/distro doesn't guarentee
latency below 5ms". There's no way of getting that without patching
their kernel.
> And yes, I think linux audio needs a FAQ bigtime. I'll help with it,
> even though I don't do audio on linux, just to see it get done.
Great!
> I'm one of these 'dumb' people who install packaged kernels, install
> apps with packages, and expect the people who wrote the software to
> deal with the basic installation efforts for their software
> (dependencies? you wrote the software, you deal with 'em!). I even do
> the unthinkable: I expect it to WORK.
How "stupid" of you.
Just kidding -- mostly. You've made one mistake: you shouldn't expect
the people who wrote the software to deal with anything. You should
expect the people who packaged the software for your distro to deal with
all those issues.
> things. But you know what? I won't, at least not anymore. I have
> other more important things to do. And I think many people who use
I know that Debian people get bad rep for doing this, but it's _true_ --
Debian does that. I type "apt-get install audacity", wait a few minutes
(depending on my 'net connection), then I start running audacity.
Now I'm not going to say "you should run Debian", since it's not for
everybody. Instead you should ask/request/pressure/pay for (a la
Mandrake Club) your distro provider into including more audio packages.
Of course sometimes you can't get packages for what you want -- Ardour
and Jack for example. And there's a good reason for that -- the
developers don't feel that it's ready for the general public (as seen by
the version numbers less than 1.0). If you're not comfortable with
dealing with "oil change" problems, avoid the pre-1.0 stuff. That's
what I do.
As a side note, I really get irked when people assume that musicians are
ignorant about computers and need their hands held at every step of the
way. Musicians were messing around with hardware voltage regulators
before I was born. They were programming mainframes with punch cards to
make a few seconds of music. Have you ever used Csound?! Some people
complain about TeX, but Csound is way beyond TeX! Compared to computer
music in the 60s... 70s... probably even the 80s, doing a few
./configures is no big deal.
- Graham Percival
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 06:37:49 EEST