On 09/28/2010 03:59 AM, Guido Piazzi wrote: > Il giorno 28/set/2010, alle ore 05.44, Larry Troxler ha scritto: > >> Even just hitting reload gives a big mean message box listing all the >> repositories that could not be found. For example, one is >> "http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/etch/main/binary-amd64/Packages.gz";. > > Try to replace "http://ftp.debian.org/"; with > "http://archive.debian.org/debian-archive/": 64studio 2.1 is quite old and > meanwhile Debian etch is no longer supported and has been moved away from the > main Debian server. > > The current "de facto" 64studio version is 3.0beta3, based on Ubuntu 8.04 > LTS. If you need something less experimental, try AVlinux 4.1 or Ubuntu > Studio 10.04, which I also use for general purpose applications, since my > audio requirements are very basic. > > Regards, > Guido
So anyway, thanks, a bit of disappointing news. I notice that even the 3.0 beta is a more than a year old, and you say it's based on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (whatever LTS is - I'll google). So it's already 2 1/2 years old and still in beta. I'll read up a bit I guess. Am I write in thinking that the reason these music distros are so lagging, is not so much the people working on them, but just the fact that developers of the music apps are slow to put out debian packages? I guess sometimes the dependency issue makes moving forward go more slowly. At the moment, theoretically I guess Ubuntu Studio would be the most current, but something turned me off about it when I tried it. I think it was either that the kernel wasn't real-time by default, or it wasn't built around Jack. I got the impression that it was oriented more to video than audio. I looked at AVLinux but the audio application list is laughable lacking. Not even PD or Rosegarden from what I remember. There's also a couple other "live" distros. <rant> So why the current trend of giving distribution releases names instead of numbers? Yes, I kind of figured out that they go in alphabetical order, but something like e.g. "Ponderous Priest" means nothing to me. When was it released?? Is it the same as 13.1 or is it 15.0? Why do we now have to keep track of both the numbered versions and the named versions, and how they correspond? Isn't this the equivalent of a software smell of storing the same information in two different places? And invariably, the alphabetical names are stupid enough the it really discredits the knowledgeable people how work hard on these distros. It makes it seem like the software is just a toy for kids. At least Ubuntu has a good idea with naming the numeric release according to when they were released. See, the analogy with software engineering in that case is a good one! It avoid needless duplication! </rant> _______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
