Re: [LAU] which lau distro is more commandline friendly?

On 22/12/15 at 08:18am, F. Silvain wrote:
> Hey hey Kare,
> from my point of view - working on the commandline with audio -, the
> specialised audio distributions are mostly specialised in the graphical
> areas. Granted they have the kernels and some additional software very
> handily available. But for commandline work that is such a minor concern,
> compared to the tools, that you really use, that after some research I
> didn't think it worth it. That is why, I turned to Debian and am now
> thinking of switching to archlinux, since they have even better and more
> up-to-date commandline tools, including some audio packages.
>
> From this point of view, I asked about your speech synth. The thought being:
> if there's one Linux that might support it, it might be as easy to set up
> the audio software as on any other system. With that you might have even
> used some graphic audio tools. Without that, I think you are restricted to
> commandline tools and thus a professional audio distro as such, seems even
> less important.
>
> Ta-ta

This thread is somewhat astonishing.

"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless: if are used to commandline you don't need
it to be friendly, if you're not you should give up dealing with it.

In the first case you know how to install tools not shipped with the regular distro
release (eg. apt, yum, pacman... or any other package management tool), moreover you
should be able to build everything from sources.

In the second case, if you can't deal with a package manager or a configure/make/make
install sequence then there's no friendly commandline out there which fits your needs.

regards
/r

-- 
«My mama said to get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom»
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user