-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:15:31PM -0700, Iain Duncan wrote:
Me too. It worked great on both my ancient laptop and my desktop,
though I did have to modprobe snd-usb-audio to get my usb midi box
detected. I've been raving about it to everyone. It
the main differences from before is that it will have a compiler inside
and that it will be a multiuser environment.
also i'm not going to be the only mantainer of the only branch
available: there will be more dyne: versions.
actually the first branch out of dyne:II is the pure:dyne project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Andres Cabrera wrote:
I've also tried dynebolic (www.dynebolic.org) and on the two systems
I've tried works considerably better than agnula live and the suse live
audio cd.
Cheers,
Andres
wow :)
for
Me too. It worked great on both my ancient laptop and my desktop, though
I did have to modprobe snd-usb-audio to get my usb midi box detected.
I've been raving about it to everyone. It also is incredibly easy to
customize.
jaromil wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Andres
At Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:59:32 +0200,
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:10 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
(And remember GNOME KDE are multi-platform - so I don't
think GNOME KDE apps can use ALSA directly.)
They don't have to use ALSA directly, but they can use a
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 18:47 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
The set-up is, however, not only the choice of the soundcard, but it
includes eventually the choice and set-up of devices. For example,
the default I/O should support 5.1 output or SPDIF if user wants (I'm
wondering why no one mentions
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 10:36 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Maybe I am stupid and therefore I have to ask: What is the rationale
for running KDE (or Gnome?) in an MS Win environment?
You can work in both environment seamlessly.
I think he meant to ask What do people still do that requires
At Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:50:38 -0400,
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 18:47 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
The set-up is, however, not only the choice of the soundcard, but it
includes eventually the choice and set-up of devices. For example,
the default I/O should support 5.1 output
Christoph Eckert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the current coding standard for consumer audio
apps that should work in both
KDE and GNOME enviroments ? Use ALSA directly, support both
artsd/esd etc ?
that's the problem. Currently there's no standard, but
creating one would simplify
What I mean is if you have your soundserver, you are still left with
rewritting every single app you ever want to use to use the soundserver,
otherwise the problem still remains. There are a hell of a lot of tools
around that use either plain OSS or direct ALSA.
Why not simply use alsa api.
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:34 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Ideally we'd be rid of artsd, esd, and all the legacy from OSS/Free.
We'd have one sound server (JACK?) and software mixing would be enabled
by default. The remaining question is how to make this mandatory for at
least the
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 11:33 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
(And remember GNOME KDE are multi-platform - so I don't think GNOME
KDE apps can use ALSA directly.)
If Gnome/KDE can't use the native sound system in Linux, then, ehrmm ...
Then the port is incomplete, and they are simply not
In the System Preferences-Sound menu, a user
can choose the default audio input and audio output
device.
In the CoreAudio API, this choice becomes the
current value of kAudioHardwarePropertyDefaultInputDevice
and kAudioHardwarePropertyDefaultOutputDevice.
Consumer-oriented apps use
At Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:23:57 +0200,
Christoph Eckert wrote:
But the core ALSA developers work for SuSE. There must be
some other explanation for this one.
Maybe they just felt that dmix was not ready until
recently. Or maybe their desktop people really do not ever
talk to the
At Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:33:18 +0100,
Damon Chaplin wrote:
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:34 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Ideally we'd be rid of artsd, esd, and all the legacy from OSS/Free.
We'd have one sound server (JACK?) and software mixing would be enabled
by default. The remaining
discipline. The differences are not overcomable, and i think you would
Sorry, as Fons pointed out in his +5 Insightful comment, this should
have been not *un*overcomable, or even *are* overcomable...
--
Tim Orford
At Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:59:11 -0400,
Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
I think that the core question is do Windows and OS X users have to know
anything about sound servers to get multiple applications to talk to the
soundcard? The answer is obviously no.
The second question is do Windows and OS X
I remember how happy I once was when I found libao to avoid
the parallel ALSA/OSS existance problem when coding a very
small application that basically just wanted to deliver
output. I wonder how hard it would be to write one library
that does the multiplexing and autodetection/config
(And remember GNOME KDE are multi-platform - so I don't
think GNOME KDE apps can use ALSA directly.)
They don't have to use ALSA directly, but they can use a
common library which uses ALSA directly like polypaudio.
That's true. KDE also runs on other operating systems like BSD
or even
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:10 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
(And remember GNOME KDE are multi-platform - so I don't
think GNOME KDE apps can use ALSA directly.)
They don't have to use ALSA directly, but they can use a
common library which uses ALSA directly like polypaudio.
That's
Of course they can use ALSA, but only indirectly via some
cross-platform API (like jack/esd/aRts/polypaudio).
Portaudio comes to my mind. It's already used by audacity.
Best regards
ce
The best place to sort this out is probably
http://freedesktop.org/ That is where GNOME KDE agree on
interoperability issues.
gstreamer seems to be one candidate.
If you can get GNOME KDE to agree I'm pretty sure the
distros would follow. It's just a matter of coming up with
a good
Maybe I am stupid and therefore I have to ask: What is the
rationale for running KDE (or Gnome?) in an MS Win
environment?
It's geeky ;-) .
Best regards
ce
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 02:16 +0200, Joachim Schiele wrote:
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:59, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:10 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
(And remember GNOME KDE are multi-platform - so I don't
think GNOME KDE apps can use ALSA directly.)
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 02:16 +0200, Joachim Schiele wrote:
What is the rationale for doing anything? Fun? Sex? Ego? Evolution? Nonsense?
Joachim!
Most of what I do, I do out of curiosity, as in: What if?
Having said that, most of your question marks fits straight in. They are
good questions!
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:57:27 +0200, fons adriaensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A number of issues have been mixed up in this debate:
1. 'cheap' vs. 'pro' audio cards.
I do agree there is a large category in between, usually named
'prosumer', and that these are used by 'professional' (as
And since when is switching the audio engine to change from reading
your email to doing your audio editing a big issue?
i'll tell you when: when you've used OSX, and are now trying Linux
out, and Don't Understand At All Why You Have To Even Bother, Or Why
Its Cool That You Have To Bother.
- If ever I have reason, as a customer paying for your services, to
suspect that you are careless about the security and confidentiality
of the data related to my project, for example if I know that your
girlfriend or 12 year old son are using the same login to do their
chatting, then I
Now given the two following options:
A. Extend Jack to accomodate all the diverse needs of the
desktop developers, and request them to use it for all
applications,
this woud IMHO be the best solution, but it will not happen or
at least last very long until
* all distros will have JACK
this woud IMHO be the best solution, but it will not happen or
at least last very long until
* all distros will have JACK running per default
* all developers of any audio program have rewritten their
code.
Why not use only ALSA API. There is alsa to jack plugin. If someone
wants use jack it
Lee Revell wrote:
FWIW, Linspire (formerly Lindows) have made the same conclusion, and
their next release will use JACK for all desktop audio.
Interesting. Do you know how they intend to use jack for desktop apps ?
using artsd/gstreamer/esd piped into jack or other methods ?
Benno
Interesting. Do you know how they intend to use jack for
desktop apps ? using artsd/gstreamer/esd piped into jack or
other methods ?
I guess via bio2jack.sf.net. THe xmms output plugin is based
on it, and I guess also the arts output plugin does use it.
Best regards
ce
Why not use only ALSA API. There is alsa to jack plugin. If
someone wants use jack it can be used to route audio to
jack. Also there are alsa - OSS driver plugins. This
means you can output sound from alsa app to oss driver or
capture from alsa driver without any source change.
As soon as
Hm, maybe the following will be an acceptable solution:
Non-Pro Applications should use the ALSA-API for Audio Output and Input.
They will use the default ALSA Device, which by default should be the
DMIX Plugin, which does samplerate conversion and mixing, if this is
not provided by the
Jay Vaughan wrote:
look, the point is: your proposal is faulty. having two logins, one
for 'pro' use, and one for 'my teenage daughter', instead of
engineering software subsystems that can accomodate the need for
professional, always-working, rock-solid stable audio .. this is just
..
I lied about retiring from this discussion. ;-)
well .. good, because i believe this thread bears fruit.
I agree that the distinction between pro and consumer should be a
non-issue. Historically hardware manufacturers certainly make the
distinction, they build some gear for Johnny Stay At
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 12:44 +0200, Benno Senoner wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
FWIW, Linspire (formerly Lindows) have made the same conclusion, and
their next release will use JACK for all desktop audio.
Interesting. Do you know how they intend to use jack for desktop apps ?
using
Hi,
personally, if i knew it would help, i wouldn't mind
spending time patching existing apps and submitting patches
to their coders, if it brought everyone into a 'common
base' that could be further exploited to put linux audio in
a better state.
much appreciated. You're welcome :) . But
Hm, maybe the following will be an acceptable solution:
Non-Pro Applications should use the ALSA-API for Audio
Output and Input.
They will use the default ALSA Device, which by default
should be the DMIX Plugin, which does samplerate conversion
and mixing, if this is not provided by the
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 23:31 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
Forget it. The distros put packages together (that's their
first job) and create installers and configuration GUIs. They
do not help improving packages.
But the core ALSA developers work for SuSE. There must be some other
But the core ALSA developers work for SuSE. There must be
some other explanation for this one.
Maybe they just felt that dmix was not ready until
recently. Or maybe their desktop people really do not ever
talk to the ALSA people.
Takashi once told me that DMIX was a bit buggy for some
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:34:46AM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
I think we should (and can) keep the desktop and 'pro'
worlds separate.
I do not agree :) . We're in the free software world, so
there's no need to tell the non-pro-audio-users use anything
else.
I think we can educate
Christoph Eckert wrote:
well, I have written a small login script which catches the
ALSA ID of my USB card and starts JACK on top of it each time
I login. This is because I use three USB devices and I didn't
manage to index them correctly to make them appear in the
same order each day.
If
Hallo,
Martin Habets hat gesagt: // Martin Habets wrote:
I think we can educate users to use a different login for pro-audio
work versus their normal desktop. The different logins can use a
different audio setup.
Actually I think, that having (at least) two soundcards will become a
standard:
I think we can educate users to use a different login for
pro-audio work versus their normal desktop. The different
logins can use a different audio setup.
I think we can not.
Personally I have a special runlevel to do audio work, but
that would probably be asking too much from your
At 2:34 +0200 18/6/05, Christoph Eckert wrote:
I think we should (and can) keep the desktop and 'pro'
worlds separate.
definitely not.
I do not agree :) . We're in the free software world, so
there's no need to tell the non-pro-audio-users use anything
else.
there should just be
I think we can educate users to use a different login for pro-audio
work versus their normal desktop. The different logins can use a
different audio setup.
what an absolutely horrid solution. i can't believe its even being considered.
Personally I have a special runlevel to do audio work,
there should just be 'working audio', whether your app is a
desktop app, a sound-synth, or a DAW. why should there be
a difference?
*sigh* :)
There are at least no technical reasons. Since I have some
knowledge about linux audio, I try to elicit what the future
audio subsystem for linux
Well I think that there is absolutly no border between Professional
Audio and Non-Professional Audio.
Just think about it, today you're using mainly xmms to play some
ogg-files, but suddenly you become a little creative, und you want to
do some drumming with hydrogen. I see no reason why somebody
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 04:38:52PM +0200, Richard Spindler wrote:
Well I think that there is absolutly no border between Professional
Audio and Non-Professional Audio.
See some previous posts.
Just think about it, today you're using mainly xmms to play some
ogg-files, but suddenly you
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 04:06:34PM +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote:
I think we can educate users to use a different login for pro-audio
work versus their normal desktop. The different logins can use a
different audio setup.
what an absolutely horrid solution. i can't believe its even being
[fons adriaensen]
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 04:04:11PM +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote:
there should just be 'working audio', whether your app is a desktop
app, a sound-synth, or a DAW. why should there be a difference?
Why are the terms 'consumer' and 'professional' used to denote two
different
Hallo,
Richard Spindler hat gesagt: // Richard Spindler wrote:
Well I think that there is absolutly no border between Professional
Audio and Non-Professional Audio.
Just think about it, today you're using mainly xmms to play some
ogg-files, but suddenly you become a little creative, und you
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:34:46AM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
I think we should (and can) keep the desktop and 'pro'
worlds separate.
I do not agree :) . We're in the free software world, so
there's no need to tell the non-pro-audio-users use anything
else.
How OS X solves this
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 07:24:26PM +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
Dividing computed audio into a 'professional' and an 'amateur' camp
only serves to defend obsolete categories and the arbitrary borders
inbetween.
I can assure you that from a POV of a paying customer, the difference
is neither
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 07:24:26PM +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
Dividing computed audio into a 'professional' and an 'amateur' camp
only serves to defend obsolete categories and the arbitrary borders
inbetween.
Sorry Tim, but I'm with Fons :-)
These categories, even though they are not
If all distros adopted JACK and all audio apps were JACKified,
we're done and all struggling would have been past.
so what this really means, is a mass patch project to get all
offending audio apps (OSS) in line with the New Linux Audio Reality.
i don't see anything wrong with that.
--
;
I don't see the switch in that scenario. And if you are a 'pro'
you'd probably use an ogg player using the 'pro' setup from the
start.
you're missing the point: you're not a pro, you're someone who becomes a pro.
As was already pointed out, prosumer and professional users
will in all
what an absolutely horrid solution. i can't believe its even being
considered.
You will not have to educate a professional user to do this.
He will do it anayway because it makes sense, even ignoring
the reasons we are debating here.
it doesn't make -any- freakin' sense whatsoever!!
As
At 18:03 +0200 18/6/05, fons adriaensen wrote:
Denying that this difference exists is a postmodern trend, but is
misguided (IMHO).
well, i work in the pro audio world, it is my bread and butter, and i
can tell you that if Linux Audio goes in the direction of requiring
'two different configs'
These categories, even though they are not absolute, and overlap, do
indicate real differences in expectations and working methodology.
this is utterly, 100%, arbitrary.
'pro' does not mean 'totally different way of doing things', nor does
'consumer' mean the only lazy option.
--
;
Jay
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:57:51PM +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote:
These categories, even though they are not absolute, and overlap, do
indicate real differences in expectations and working methodology.
this is utterly, 100%, arbitrary.
'pro' does not mean 'totally different way of doing
[fons adriaensen]
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 07:24:26PM +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
Dividing computed audio into a 'professional' and an 'amateur' camp
only serves to defend obsolete categories and the arbitrary borders
inbetween.
I can assure you that from a POV of a paying customer, the
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 16:38 +0200, Richard Spindler wrote:
Well I think that there is absolutly no border between Professional
Audio and Non-Professional Audio.
Just think about it, today you're using mainly xmms to play some
ogg-files, but suddenly you become a little creative, und you want
Actually I think, that having (at least) two soundcards
will become a standard: One (like the onboard chip) for mp3
listening etc, and a professional one for audio work.
I dislike this idea. I'm currently doing so:
* Running arts/ogg players on top of AC97
* Running my music stuff on top of
the 'cheap sound card' should work using the same tech as
the 'expensive' one.
Seconded :) .
Best regards
ce
Well I think that there is absolutly no border between
Professional Audio and Non-Professional Audio.
See some previous posts.
I also dislike the idea of dividing the users to pros and
amateurs. Am I a pro? Certainly not, I'm just a hobbyist. And
I'd be glad if some day I could install
I didn't want to make that difference, but as every
mainboard nowadays has a decent audio chip onboard and as
every more demanding user (the professional) has a second
card, too, why not just split applications between those
two?
I think that's not the point we're discussing.
Of course, if
Hallo,
Jay Vaughan hat gesagt: // Jay Vaughan wrote:
why not, no matter whether the chipset is on-board, or in an external
firewire case, present the -same- configuration of the audio-system,
no matter what!
*this* would be a pro approach. saying that its okay to have two
different
Forgive me the harsh word, but this is all useless BS.
:)
I
have to admit I don't care if Linux audio is used by many
or none, pro or ama; I don't care for world domination
either.
That's exactly the point. You do not care (and that's
absolutely OK)...
I have the tools I want, now is
so what this really means, is a mass patch project to get
all offending audio apps (OSS) in line with the New Linux
Audio Reality.
i don't see anything wrong with that.
What's wrong with that is that we do not all agree in the LA*
community.
And as long as we do not agree we cannto
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:12:54PM +0200, Tim Orford wrote:
As well as the difference between Pro/Amateur there is the
Consumer/Producer divide. To anyone who isnt involved in any kind of
production, Jackd is inappropriate.
Probably not if it's so solid that it can become 'invisible' to the
On my laptop, all my audio software I use on stage is
configured to use an external soundcard (hw:1) because it's
much better quality,
Frank, are you really talking about our beloved Terratec
Aureon?!?
Just kidding :) .
whereas all my desktop audio
software (alsaplayer etc.) is
Actually I think, that having (at least) two soundcards
will become a standard: One (like the onboard chip) for mp3
listening etc, and a professional one for audio work.
Disagreed.
Einspruch, euer hren ;-)
Best regards
ce
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:29:50AM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
On my laptop, all my audio software I use on stage is configured to
use an external soundcard (hw:1) because it's much better quality,
whereas all my desktop audio software (alsaplayer etc.) is
configured to use the internal
Well I think that there is absolutly no border between
Professional Audio and Non-Professional Audio.
Disagreed ;-) . But there's no border in tech terms.
I often see that amateurs use better equipment than
professionals. Therefore: Agreed at 100%.
I remember my keyboard teacher who earns
I'm basically doing the same thing. On my 'studio' system,
all 'entertainment' stuff goes to the onboard chip and that
drives the speakers built into the monitor. Meanwhile jackd
runs on the Terratec hooked up to an external mixer. The
onboard output also goes to that mixer but is rarely
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:57:16PM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
I also dislike the idea of dividing the users to pros and
amateurs. Am I a pro? Certainly not, I'm just a hobbyist. And
I'd be glad if some day I could install any distro, plug in
my guitar, fire up jack-rack and start
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:23:10AM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
Thanks Paul for Ardour!
Thanks++
--
FA
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:49:16PM +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote:
So even elementary security provides more than enough reason to keep
the two well separated.
eh? sorry, but you've gone stupid on this issue.
Maybe I am stupid, and maybe you are a professional. In that case
let me make two
I think that the core question is do Windows and OS X users have to know
anything about sound servers to get multiple applications to talk to the
soundcard? The answer is obviously no.
The second question is do Windows and OS X users have to know a bit more
about audio in order to use it for
I think we should (and can) keep the desktop and 'pro'
worlds separate.
I do not agree :) . We're in the free software world, so
there's no need to tell the non-pro-audio-users use anything
else.
And if they have to be integrated, the
solution will be JACK.
Agreed.
Writing a JACKified
Andres Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
something you know will cause an xrun, like when returning from the
screensaver or dragging quickly many windows
This is totally unacceptable (in my opinion) and it should not
happen. It does not happen here (anymore).
Versions?.
--
Esben Stien is
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 20:46 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
Andres Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
something you know will cause an xrun, like when returning from the
screensaver or dragging quickly many windows
This is totally unacceptable (in my opinion) and it should not
happen. It does
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mplayer -ao jack
Works flawlessly here.
--
Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] s a
http://www. s tn m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
[sip|iax]: e e
jid:b0ef@n n
Jay Vaughan wrote:
such opinion-cults are all the FOSS world -has- for a PR front. this
one happens to be negative. its quite possible, however, that a
counter to his position would work *positively*, if we were prepared
to organize it a bit. i'd be quite happy, actually, to submit to /. a
I assume you've already seen my 18 articles (one per month) published
on-line for the Linux Journal ? Or perhaps you've read the articles
I've written for the hard-copy LJ, Linux Magazine-UK or the Computer
Music Journal ? Every letter of that output deals with Linux audio
(and even some
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:12 +0200, Jan Weil wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2005, 10:36 -0400 schrieb Lee Revell:
Who in the hell is this jwz, and why does everyone care what he thinks
so much? Can someone at least post a link to this rant of his?
This
Dave Phillips wrote:
I can honestly say that
jwz appears to have no influence at all within this community.
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it. Within this enlightened,
favoured and lucky community, no-one needs convincing - that would be
preaching to the choir. The original poster wants
The original poster wants to change opinions
*outside* the community, where some people do think Linux
audio's not up to scratch - or that it's hard to configure
- or whatever. If they're wrong, the original poster was
saying, let's change their minds.
Isn't it too early?
I think 2005 is a
Hi,
I just wanted to add what I think about the whole issue:
Frist of all, jwz is fundamentally right with one observation:
There is something wrong with the Linux-Audio Situation.
You install the Operating System, you want to listen to some Sound,
and it doesn't work. This is a problem.
James McDermott wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:
I can honestly say that
jwz appears to have no influence at all within this community.
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it. Within this enlightened,
favoured and lucky community, no-one needs convincing - that would be
preaching to
Agreed, but as I tried to indicate, there's a boatload of helpful
information out there. jwz writes *as if it doesn't exist*.
he writes simply this: he shouldn't have to freakin' care.
maybe this is linus' fault for not putting in all the kernel patches
needed to make ALSA just work, eh?
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it. Within this enlightened,
favoured and lucky community, no-one needs convincing - that would be
preaching to the choir. The original poster wants to change opinions
*outside* the community, where some people do think Linux audio's not
up to scratch - or
Hi Jay:
Thanks for your civil response and the good humor. Yes, I'm blowing
off steam, and yes, I can be as self-righteous as anyone else. It's
probably because I do use the very software jwz despairs of. And I have
to add that no, I don't especially care for the slumming style of the
Agreed, but as I tried to indicate, there's a boatload of helpful
information out there. jwz writes *as if it doesn't exist*. He doesn't
avail himself of the available resources, and he discredits himself and
his opinions by just that failure. His articles show little evidence of
background
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:58 +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
People seem to be fooled by the fact that jwz has done many open source
contributions. However, he has a history of ranting, last instance
I remember was a hate-parade against the Debian X Windows System maintainers.
Just ignore him, my 2
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:09:38PM +0200, Richard Spindler wrote:
Hi,
I'm actually amazed that there is still no premium Linux-Workstation
Integrator that ships well selected Linux-Boxes with a custom
Linux-Distribution that's exactly fitted to the Hardware. That'd be
hard to beat.
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 20:55 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:09:38PM +0200, Richard Spindler wrote:
Hi,
I'm actually amazed that there is still no premium Linux-Workstation
Integrator that ships well selected Linux-Boxes with a custom
Linux-Distribution
99 matches
Mail list logo
