Re: [linux-audio-user] That Windows feeling...

On Monday 04 September 2006 20:05, carmen was like:
(Ianas originally said:)
> > I find it deceiving that
> > in 2006 there are still some basic problems with the major flagship
> > distros.
>
> whoever said SuSE and FEdora were flagship? flagship distros are debian,
> gentoo, and ubuntu, with arch and mandriva rounding out the top 5. or
> REdHat/Novell in the corporate world. Fedora is just redhat's lame attempt
> to offload work on RedHat to others by emulating the debian model
> unsuccessfuly.

In your opinion.

The term 'flagship distro' isn't really common parlance, so it doesn't really
make sense arguing the point. There are plenty of people on this list happily
using SuSE and Fedora+PlanetCCRMA to make music. Your reasoning sucks.

> nobody said you had to try Studio64, Musix, Agnula, Demudi, StudioToGo,
> PCLinuxOS, UbuntuStudio, or wahtever 'derived from another distro and
> improved but still proably not fully working \'music out-of-the-box\'
> support'.

You are not comparing like with like here at all. DeMuDi and UbuntuStudio are
simply methods of installing and configuring Debian and Ubuntu respectively
for multimedia use - Musix and Studio to Go! are live CDs AFAIA. 64studio is
a Debian derived distro specifically aimed at 64bit architecture, but it has
not been declared stable yet, so it deserves to be given a bit more slack.
Ubuntu is also a Debian derived distro. Agnula, incidentally, is not a distro
at all, it's a European free software consortium, which currently maintains
DeMuDi.

Off-the-wall misinformation doesn't help anyone come to an informed decision.

None of the major distros provide a low-latency kernel or realtime security
model that works out of the box, hence the development of DeMuDi,
PlanetCCRMA, UbuntuStudio, Gentoo's pro-audio overlay and the proliferation
of various derived distributions and live CDs. These approaches are
frequently recommended by people on this list, because we tried them and they
worked for us. None of this software comes with any guarantees and the
developers are often not working to any kind of mutually agreed timeline,
which means that distro maintainers frequently have to juggle applications in
varying states of compatibility. For this reason, most stable software
collections use older versions of applications, which don't have all the
latest features and may still contain bugs which are considered non-critical.

Linux is essentially a DIY approach to computing, what you don't pay for in
money, you pay for in time, effort and reading. I think it's a fair deal. The
other payback is that we on this list learn to become efficient beta-testers
and submit useful bug reports rather than making unqualified complaints.

-- 
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
We are the people We've been waiting for.