Ricardo . said : > I would like to contribute again to this interesting discussion. I > understand that the problem with Ubuntu isn't it's bloatness, one can handle > that doing, like you said, a minimal install. And I think that, if it's going > to save you work and you achieve to deliver a stable and performance-oriented > system, it can be indeed a clever way to go. I, however, don't like Ubuntu's > release cycle, like I mentioned earlier, I feel much more comfortable having a > solid base system and install newer versions from packages I want (mainly SC3, > Ardour, Jack and a rt-kernel), than having to upgrade everything quite often. > I > think there are 2 main reasons why people that do audio work (and people in > general too) switch to Linux: it's free (and this has both economical and > political/ideological points) and it's stable. So, I really can't recommend > one > to install in his system something like UbuntuStudio that comes with a crappy > rt-kernel or buggy Intel Graphics Drivers (this one applys to plain Ubuntu as > well), just to mention some problems that plagues distros released in a rush. > Debian, well configured, is a damn good Desktop system, doesn't crash, has > well > build backported packages, offers Testing and Unstable repositores from which > one can grab sources and backport apps etc. What I think would be awesome (and > I'm doing my homework here learning bash scripting and debian packaging so I > can help with this task) would be to have something like an audio-backports or > multimedia-backports for debian stable, with all those cool stuff we enjoy > (since backports.org is only meant for popular packages, a status that our > beloved supercollider, for example, hasn't achieved yet). But that's something > for another project, I'm considering contacting people at debian-multimedia > etc. to see what can be done here (as soon as I feel confortable in packaging > apps for debian). > Coming back to the Ubuntu discussion, on which version will next > pure:dyne be based? How will you handle, for example, this intel graphics > problem? >
Ok - yes, the accelerated release cycle brings not only joy, but also problems, as you mention. the intel graphics card issue is, afaics not an issue anymore in karmic. My graphics work *a lot* better now than with older xorg version :). That said, its very true that, especially with jaunty, there were a lot of problems with buggy drivers and so on. We will not use rt-kernel provided by UbuntuStudio, so there is not really going to be a problem from that side either. The problem in my opinion lies in the detail here. You say that Debian 'well configured' is a good starting point for a solid install... well, thats true, but consider that its not really within everybodies abilities to configure stuff, so its down to provide sane defaults. This is what Ubuntu does in a lot of ways, obviously not always as success but hey.. Now, to your second point: mixing distros (stable,testing,unstable) in Debian with backporting is a quite a tricky business, since it breaks quite easily, especially when you have to do pinning for specific packages. Aymeric will know more about the specifics, but as far as I know it was really a nightmare to maintain. The release cycle of Ubuntu on the other side suits our 'personal cycles' more much more, in that its a half-year release cycle (right?) which becomes stable and only security updates are made (I think... please tell me if I'm wrong here). > Ricardo > > 2009/9/10 Karsten Gebbert <[email protected]> > > Arif Driessen said : > > > > main point is that *if* you feel you can handle purdyne based on > > Debian - you can definitely handle puredyne based on ubuntu. > > > > > > > > Well I happen to be sceptical of a move to ubuntu. As soon as you move > to > > ubuntu, I no longer have a need for pure:dyne as I myself could easially > > install my particular flavour of ubuntu (as i no doubt will not be > entirely > > satisfied with your choices) and plonk my media apps and realtime patch > on top. > > > > I don't quite understand this. Ubuntu is a snapshot of Debian sid plus > patches/improvements meaning that if you can do this with Ubuntu you > can do it just as well with Debian. The thing is not that experienced > users can do this sort of thing themselves - we all know that :) - but > we put this together for people that can't do it themselves, or don't > want to or simply don't have the time. > > > Besides, I thoght p:d was all about lightweight-ness, something which > ubuntu is > > not about. if there are actually some solid reasons for why you would > want to > > move to ubuntu (which I'm sure there'll only be a few) then why not add > them to > > your debian distro rather than the other way around (starting with > ubuntu > and > > cutting your way around thick and fog) > > Lightweirght-ness is not something that is impossible to achieve with > Ubuntu. In fact, if you start from a minimal install and install only > the stuffs needed you end up with a snappy minimal system, just like > you had before. As said above: a lot of the packages *are* the same as > in Debian, yes, with slighly different defaults, and definitely more > recent versions, but.... its Debian-based and is thus just as > customisable as its parent distro. > > > Here would constitute a great reason for an update to p:d... > > > > * Remove XFCE, move to Lxde > > * Get firefox 3.5 in there (it is way faster) > > * Remove all gnome dependencies including... > > * Remove Gnome Desktop Manager, replace with SLiM > > * Add the ubuntu installer app, that will easially handle turning your > live > > distro into a non-live HD based 'normal' OS > > The point you're raising is something that in fact we have thought > very carefully about. Backporting packages is not a big deal in > itself, but in the long run requires a *massive* amount of > maintainance work. Just think about it: a team of.. say 6-7 maybe 8 or > 9 people having to maintain all the packages they create, plus on top > follow the release cycle of packages they have (but don't really want) > to maintain (I'm thinking of stuff like firefox, or XFCE or > whatnot). Not sure you know what that means, but its a massive amount > of work, if done properly. We just don't have the resources to do that > at this point and it seems really like a bad idea to duplicate all > that work when its already being done by Ubuntu maintainers. > > I think the point should be raised again that one of the main > advantages of Ubuntu is that its *because* its a Desktop-oriented > distro (which is what most of people who do music/art/media stuffs use > it as ;) its suited much better to our needs than Debian. Debian will > most probably more and more become a distro for servers and > applications like that, where stability is more important than the > length of new-features list. > > Finally, I think it needs to be said that, yes, we should think about > using LXDE + pcmanfm (which I think is great btw) and try to keep it > simple and lightweight on the Desktop end, but the prejeduice you're > raising about "Ubuntu-based" == "bloated" is IMHO non-sense. > If you still like, you could help us keeping puredyne simple and > lightweight by, for instance, making a ticket with the recommendations > you make towards improving memory/cpu footprint, startup time or > create a Debian package for SLiM (which looks cool btw). > > Greetings, > > > -- karsten gebbert > -- krgn.goto10.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkqpTNIACgkQJYU9qnGdnMd80wCfYuPMfU4TE/1CNAUuAk3uNWAR > n00An3R9SgAmLN+gmS4s2uyIdfpjfwuZ > =AlgG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > [email protected] > irc.goto10.org #puredyne > > > --- > [email protected] > irc.goto10.org #puredyne -- karsten gebbert -- krgn.goto10.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- [email protected] irc.goto10.org #puredyne
