On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 23:31 -0400, Larry Troxler wrote: > 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.
3.3 alpha is ok and based on Karmic, you can ignore the word "alpha". > 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'm subscribed to the Ubuntu Studio list, having a discussion about the kernel. Ubuntu Studio don't ships with a PREEMPT RT kernel, but just a PREEMPT kernel, without the rt-patch. Neither the kernel-rt from the repositories, nor self-build kernels are ok for my Ubuntu Studio install. I'm working with the 'outdated' 64 Studio 3.0 beta, 3.3 alpha and sometimes openSUSE 11.2. Take care when using Linux distros supporting latest desktop software. On Fri, 2010-10-01 Scott Lavender, Ubuntu Studio project lead wrote: > [snip] > I would argue that Ubuntu Studio is not for a professional studio. > > Despite what others might argue or what various documentation might > say, I believe the Ubuntu Studio is NOT for professional use in a > recording studio. > > In my opinion, much greater control would be required to tailor > kernels, applications, and system systems. A company like Indamixx > and their OS, Transmission 4.0, would be an example. > http://www.indamixx.com/indamixx-iso-download.html > [snip] IIRC Indamixx is using a OEM version of 64 Studio. > 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. No, it's more oriented to desktop day-by-day usage. If you do professional video editing you need proper audio too, btw. jack transport very seldom is supported by video editing apps. > I looked at AVLinux but the audio application list is laughable lacking. AV Linux is a very good distro, I don't have an AV Linux installed, but the live CD I've got comes with interesting audio stuff by default, that is missing for 64 Studio. At the moment this would be the only distro that could replace 64 Studio for my needs. For example, it does include the LinuxDSP effects. > Not even PD or Rosegarden from what I remember. There's also a couple > other "live" distros. IMO Rosegarden is obsolet. Qtractor or Ardour3 are the new MIDI sequencers and perhaps Muse, if it should run on your machine. > <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> Don't take the names to serious, e.g. On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 19:56 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > just play on (the beat:) > > i only wish qtractor release codenames could amuse you all a little bit > longer than i take to make one up--it's getting real hard to cope with > the f&d peak, female nouns are really running out > > maybe i'll take on your once suggestion Ralf, to switch after bikini > bottom characters. well, i guess then Fons will surely lol when it gets > to a patrick star release :D > > thanks && enjoy We should take care of the numbers for distros and apps, the names are just a kind of mnemonics, the brain is able to recall a picture more easy, but a number. And names sometimes are for amusement. Resume: Try 3.3 alpha or switch to AV Linux if it should be more up to date (compiling some apps shouldn't be to hard for a up to date distro). Cheers! Ralf _______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
