On Wednesday 24 December 2003 4:33 pm, kenny scott wrote: > Soundcard issue > > I have a new soundcard, which is an M-audio Audiohpile 2496. > > to my dismay!! I bought the wrong bloody Midi cable for it, so I can't > connect uit Yet to my midi keyboard. > > however I can connect my keyboard to my onboard soundcard?
Assuming you're using AC97 sound, this should not be too much of a problem. You don't say which distro you use, so this may not be relevant, but a bit ot Googling around got me a couple of links, including this about configuring in SuSE http://www.linuxforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3830 , this for mandrake http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/expert/2002-02/msg01423.php and this which is a bit more detailed http://www.ale.org/archive/ale/ale-2000-11/msg00187.html I had this configured a while ago on my system - AC97 and an SB Live Value (yes, I am ashamed ... how is the M-audio 2496? I use a MidiMan Delta 1010 at work, and it's excellent, but I use it under Win2K with Cubase), and had no probs. Since I didn't have a need for both, I disabled the motherboard sound to save on system resources. Sorry, I've no experience of using the MIDI ports on either under Linux. Neil. > > My question, can I have two soundcards running simutaniously? all I need > the onboard soudncard is for the midi/joyport so I can connect it to my > midi Keyboard! > > Any taker? > > On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 12:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Send Scottish mailing list submissions to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Scottish digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: IRC Debate logs (William Anderson) > > 2. Re: Forming New LUG (ptb) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:27:20 +0000 > > From: William Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Scottish] IRC Debate logs > > To: SLUG-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > > > Tony Dyer wrote: > > > Nice to see how you act when someone challenges your views. > > > So your colours are showed true here. > > > Tony Dyer. > > > > > > [entire previous message including irc log snippage] > > > > If you are going to suggest list membership be a prerequisite for LUG > > membership and communication, can you at least trim previous replies in > > your posts to the list? :( > > > > -- > > _ __/| ___ ___ __ _________ "When Microsoft Office is your only > > hammer, \`O_o' / _ \/ -_) // / __/ _ \ pretty much everything begins to > > look like =(_ _)=/_//_/\__/\_,_/_/ \___/ a nail. Or a thumb." -- Rob > > Pegoraro U - Ack! Phttpt! Thhbbt! neuro at well dot com > > http://neuro.me.uk/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:56:57 +0000 > > From: ptb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Scottish] Forming New LUG > > To: SLUG-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Hallo all : - > > > > Regarding talk of "further fragmenting the Scottish LUG > > community" this allegation assumes at least three things : - > > 1 That Tony's proposed new UG would be under the LUG umbrella; > > 2 That one could not be in both a LUG and the pnUG (so as in > > religious and political mainstreams and sects); > > 3 That fragmentation is bad in itself and that Tony forking off > > in despair (if he does) couldn't lead anywhere for the rest. > > > > Assumes, I say, but I was told in recent years that to ASSUME > > makes an ASS of U and ME. > > > > For the current record where is there a brief history of > > ScotLUG's early days please? > > > > Pat > > > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:17:45 +0000 > > > > William Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Tony Dyer wrote: > > > > I have become increasingly disaffected by the lack of progress and > > > > decisions the charting SLUG's future. As such I intend to form a > > > > distinct UG, in the Greater Glasgow Area, devoted to a broad range of > > > > Open Source as well as Linux issues and taking in user as well as > > > > technical views. If anyone is interested in joining me please contact > > > > me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish those who continue with SLUG every > > > > success in the future. My Heart and Head are no longer with my > > > > co-creation. > > > > > > This kind of response is disappointing to say the least. A lack of > > > progress and decisions regarding the LUG in the middle of December is > > > hardly something to get worked up about - this is a time when most > > > people are winding down and are possibly away from keyboards. > > > > > > Some good comments have been made over the last couple of weeks, and > > > while formalised progress hasn't been decided upon, I think it's only > > > fair to mull over further comments and thoughts over the holiday > > > period. I notice that you didn't participate in the discussion which > > > you yourself initiated on the 9th - any reason for that? You could > > > have guided that thread to engage and enliven LUG members to be more > > > proactive, but you didn't - why? You changed your mind from offering to > > > turn up at meetings and do some content for the website at around half > > > past eight on Monday night to forming another Glasgow LUG at about half > > > past ten. If you attribute your change of heart to some indigestion > > > after your dinner, I can somewhat understand, but otherwise it just > > > smacks of impatience and offhanded irritation. > > > > > > If you feel that your only way forward is to abandon the existing LUG > > > and attempt to form a new one, then good luck to you, but it seems an > > > extremely rash and ill-mannered decision to make. If you want to take > > > charge of something and take it forward, why not do so with the > > > existing LUG instead of creating a new LUG, fragmenting the community? > > > > > > I suggested earlier in the month that the community that is ScotLUG > > > become GLUG, retaining the current membership, times, goals, etc, and > > > the ScotLUG "brand" be used as an umbrella organisation to help bring > > > together the LUG communities in Scotland. You are suggesting further > > > fragmenting the Scottish LUG community - can we have more details > > > reasons why you feel this is necessary? > > > > > > Please don't take any of these comments as an attack - I genuinely > > > would like to hear your answers to my questions, and any other comments > > > you wish to make to make your position and thinking clearer. if you > > > still feel your only course of action is to fragment the community, I > > > again wish you luck and also a guid new year. > > > > > > -- > > > _ __/| ___ ___ __ _________ "When Microsoft Office is your only > > > hammer, \`O_o' / _ \/ -_) // / __/ _ \ pretty much everything begins > > > to look like =(_ _)=/_//_/\__/\_,_/_/ \___/ a nail. Or a thumb." -- > > > Rob Pegoraro U - Ack! Phttpt! Thhbbt! neuro at well dot com > > > http://neuro.me.uk/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scottish mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish > > _______________________________________________ > Scottish mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish _______________________________________________ Scottish mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish
