Audio Distribution Proposal...

[jrogers]

> Message: 28
> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:54:22 +0300
> From: Asmo Koskinen <asmo.koskinen@...>
> Subject: Re: [LAU] ubuntu realtime.

I did not take quotes from the following link because the whole thing deserves
a (re)read
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-users/2009-April/004507.html

This bummed be out so I had to quote this:
> Almost down for the count, Cory K.

The note was a plea for help so I would like to see what we can do.

There are so many things to discuss and so many possible directions to go in…
Just thinking about it can be overwhelming…

Free (not free beer, but “freedom”) is wonderful, but it ironically can be
more paralyzing than “confinement”, so let me start with a simple and self
limiting proposal:

I tried to write this list a few times, and every time it got too long and
complicated. At the risk of being flamed here is my “simple” list:

- Manual install (like arch Linux) is fine and probably preferred. (manual is
fine, but complete default instructions would be needed)
- specific hardware (i.e. motherboard, video card and audio interface) is fine
- most/all of the “popular” audio apps with a kernel that combined to create a
system that was extremely stable and had reasonable latency (less than 10ms?
Or maybe less than 7ms? What ever can be done with reasonable and reliable
settings?)
- I would donate at least $100 per year (If a thousand people joined me that
would be $100K… Could one person full time, or several people part-time sign
up for that?
- I would donate a few years in advance… say three years… (If this would help
someone/some-few decide to do this)
- I would also help out. This assumes the individual or small core team would
dedicate sufficient time to partition the tasks in a way that would facilitate
widespread involvement.

Questions:

Ignoring resources (money, people, etc) is it reasonable to build and maintain
such a distribution?

Is $100k per year enough? If not how much is needed?

Are 1000 users at $100 reasonable to expect? How about 2000 at $50? Or 500 at
$200 (I would consider donating $200/year) Strike that… If this existed today
I would donate $200.


I know that the conventional wisdom is that Linux audio is not for “new Linux
users” but I think that is the root of the “chicken/egg” problem that we have
here. A predictable, stable, reliable audio distribution may generate the
support that the particular distribution (and Linux audio in general) needs to
get to the next level.

Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Thomas Fisher-2]

On Wednesday 03 June 2009 03:09:32 pm jrogers wrote:

> > Message: 28
> > Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:54:22 +0300
> > From: Asmo Koskinen <asmo.koskinen@...>
> > Subject: Re: [LAU] ubuntu realtime.
>
> I did not take quotes from the following link because the whole thing
> deserves a (re)read
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-users/2009-April/004507.htm
>l
>
> This bummed be out so I had to quote this:
> > Almost down for the count, Cory K.
>
> The note was a plea for help so I would like to see what we can do.
>
> There are so many things to discuss and so many possible directions to go
> in… Just thinking about it can be overwhelming…
>
> Free (not free beer, but “freedom”) is wonderful, but it ironically can be
> more paralyzing than “confinement”, so let me start with a simple and self
> limiting proposal:
>
> I tried to write this list a few times, and every time it got too long and
> complicated. At the risk of being flamed here is my “simple” list:
>
> - Manual install (like arch Linux) is fine and probably preferred. (manual
> is fine, but complete default instructions would be needed)
> - specific hardware (i.e. motherboard, video card and audio interface) is
> fine - most/all of the “popular” audio apps with a kernel that combined to
> create a system that was extremely stable and had reasonable latency (less
> than 10ms? Or maybe less than 7ms? What ever can be done with reasonable
> and reliable settings?)
> - I would donate at least $100 per year (If a thousand people joined me
> that would be $100K… Could one person full time, or several people
> part-time sign up for that?
> - I would donate a few years in advance… say three years… (If this would
> help someone/some-few decide to do this)
> - I would also help out. This assumes the individual or small core team
> would dedicate sufficient time to partition the tasks in a way that would
> facilitate widespread involvement.
>
> Questions:
>
> Ignoring resources (money, people, etc) is it reasonable to build and
> maintain such a distribution?
>
> Is $100k per year enough? If not how much is needed?
>
> Are 1000 users at $100 reasonable to expect? How about 2000 at $50? Or 500
> at $200 (I would consider donating $200/year) Strike that… If this existed
> today I would donate $200.
>
>
> I know that the conventional wisdom is that Linux audio is not for “new
> Linux users” but I think that is the root of the “chicken/egg” problem that
> we have here. A predictable, stable, reliable audio distribution may
> generate the support that the particular distribution (and Linux audio in
> general) needs to get to the next level.
>
> Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?
>

===============================================
  I am at best a wannbe audiophile with graphics and cine schemes. Linux
capable but not any guru. I have attended the LAU, UbuntuStudio, CCRMA lists
for several years. I have run Linux versions ranging from Slackware, Redhat {
several releases }, Fedora, Debian { a couple of releases }, Ubuntu { several
releases }. I have marveled at the social phenomena of Linux, GNU, and open
source software and have witnessed a couple of beached whales.
  Debian's philosophy is stability and reliability. Ubuntu is more "bleeding
edge" and runs by the clock to have a rap prior to the chime for when the
next new release is due. Unfortunately Ubuntu Studio seems to be driven by
the same chime but with more stringent goals to meet, one of which is
this "realtime" dilemma, especially where there does not seem to be a real
kernel guru on the team.  Add the pulseaudio mess, uncertainties of major
audio packages, positionalities of personalities, and etcetera the resultant
chaos becomes certain. Consequently major efforts such as cinelerra have to
be sidelined.
  I suspect the first design flaw is pandering to the clock. Another problem
is the information curve was being ignored in UbuntuStudio to help the new to
fully comprehend what UbuntuStudio is technically so more would have stepped
forward to contribute to the development effort. From what I observed,  
UbuntuStudio could have drawn more from the LAU & LAD knowledge base. Just
exactly how, I do not know, other than I suspect a lot of missed
opportunities were possible.  Meanwhile I am certain Gates and crew are
having a chuckle.
  So before we throw dollars at it I suspect a well thought out analysis would
be in order.
Hope this is of use.
Tom




_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Erik de Castro Lopo-10]

jrogers wrote:

> - Manual install (like arch Linux) is fine and probably preferred. (manual is
> fine, but complete default instructions would be needed)

Regardless of what may or may not be wrong with Ubuntu Studio,
I think you should still choose to use a system with debian
packaging.

Yes, it has its faults, but no other packaging system comes near
it for ease of distribution, security, reliability, upgrade-ability
and so on.

I haven't used Arch specifically, but I currently have OpenSuse,
Fedora, Gentoo, FreeBSD and OpenBSD running in VMs. At work I am
the main developer responsible for a system consisting of 100s
(and hopefully soon 1000s) of remotely administered headless Linux
kiosk style systems based on the Ubuntu LTS release and over 100
of our own Debian packages.

Building this setup on any of the other systems I have tried would
simply not have been possible.

Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[c]

On Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:21:52PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> jrogers wrote:
>
> > - Manual install (like arch Linux) is fine and probably preferred. (manual is
> > fine, but complete default instructions would be needed)
>
> Regardless of what may or may not be wrong with Ubuntu Studio,
> I think you should still choose to use a system with debian
> packaging.
>
> Yes, it has its faults, but no other packaging system comes near
> it for ease of distribution, security, reliability, upgrade-ability
> and so on.

are you joking? its a hodge podge of perl scripts and baroque practices

if you want a 'canonical', 'trusted' binary of fairly recent vintage of a somewhat popular app, im sure you can't go wrong


but for stuff like audio where 98% of the stuff you want to instal resides in Git/Hg,

ive had much greater availability and ease with two solutions:

proaudio overlay (for gentoo) and Paludis (for handling of hg/git/vcs depchain updating)

and the AUR / archaudio.org project for Arch..
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM, carmen <_@...> wrote:

> On Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:21:52PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> jrogers wrote:
>>
>> > - Manual install (like arch Linux) is fine and probably preferred. (manual is
>> > fine, but complete default instructions would be needed)
>>
>> Regardless of what may or may not be wrong with Ubuntu Studio,
>> I think you should still choose to use a system with debian
>> packaging.
>>
>> Yes, it has its faults, but no other packaging system comes near
>> it for ease of distribution, security, reliability, upgrade-ability
>> and so on.
>
> are you joking? its a hodge podge of perl scripts and baroque practices
>
> if you want a 'canonical', 'trusted' binary of fairly recent vintage of a somewhat popular app, im sure you can't go wrong
>
>
> but for stuff like audio where 98% of the stuff you want to instal resides in Git/Hg,
>
> ive had much greater availability and ease with two solutions:
>
> proaudio overlay (for gentoo) and Paludis (for handling of hg/git/vcs depchain updating)
>
> and the AUR / archaudio.org project for Arch..

I cannot imagine where this thread is really going. It should be fun to read...

I guess folks who don't run Gentoo generally have such a negative
view, but I really like it for this audio application. +1 for the
pro-audio overlay. +1 for slotting. +1 for being able to create your
own overalys. I built this machine 5-6 years ago and have never had to
do an upgrade. Just keeps running with a few commands.

It's hard for me to imagine using a distro anymore that doesn't fully
consider the user building ALL code from scratch, like Gentoo. Sure I
often wish I didn't have to build things, but I won't use a distro
that doesn't support me to do it from scratch on all programs. It
shouldn't be considered out of the ordinary.

- Mark
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

>but for stuff like audio where 98% of the stuff you want to instal resides in
Git/Hg,
>
>ive had much greater availability and ease with two solutions:
>
>proaudio overlay (for gentoo) and Paludis (for handling of hg/git/vcs depchain
updating)
>
>and the AUR / archaudio.org project for Arch..

I can vouch for pro-audio..but haven't really tried Paludis (definitely something
I will look into though).

I personally think a Gentoo (pro-audio) or arch based distro (or even snapshot)
is best for audio...
Doing something like "Gmaq" (for lack of knowing his real name) has been doing
with AVLinux.. and effectively creating a snapshot once or maybe twice a year (at
the absolute most)....

Experienced/Adventurous users could use this as a base to work from.. newbies, or
people who want something that just works could just update the image every time
it comes out (preferably it wouldn't touch your /etc/* files and obviously not
/home) ..

The Pro-Audio overlay and Arch Audio guys have the right idea, only focussing on
packaging things that aren't covered in the mainstream distro. IN the case of
Pro-Audio (as I can't speak for arch) also creating a "package" for SVN,GIT,CVS
trunks for those that want or need to use the development versions.

The next stage would be to simply create the image/snapshot ... initially this
could be installed from another live cd... (instructions on how to partition,
what filesystems to choose and then basically copy, edit fstab and networking
config files, install grub and reboot)...  

and finally a very basic install media (like ARCH... although with the ability to
discover and create mdadm lvm partitions)...











_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Patrick Shirkey]

On 06/04/2009 06:09 AM, jrogers wrote:

Message: 28
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:54:22 +0300
From: Asmo Koskinen asmo.koskinen@...
Subject: Re: [LAU] ubuntu realtime.
    

I did not take quotes from the following link because the whole thing deserves
a (re)read
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-users/2009-April/004507.html

This bummed be out so I had to quote this:
  

Almost down for the count, Cory K.
    

Hi,

I haven't followed the whole thread but have you heard about the work that is being done on the transmission distro?

Several of the items you have flagged are being worked on and many more that you have left out.

The note was a plea for help so I would like to see what we can do.

There are so many things to discuss and so many possible directions to go in…
Just thinking about it can be overwhelming…

Free (not free beer, but “freedom”) is wonderful, but it ironically can be
more paralyzing than “confinement”, so let me start with a simple and self
limiting proposal:

I tried to write this list a few times, and every time it got too long and
complicated. At the risk of being flamed here is my “simple” list:

- Manual install (like arch Linux) is fine and probably preferred. (manual is
fine, but complete default instructions would be needed)
- specific hardware (i.e. motherboard, video card and audio interface) is fine 
- most/all of the “popular” audio apps with a kernel that combined to create a
system that was extremely stable and had reasonable latency (less than 10ms?
Or maybe less than 7ms? What ever can be done with reasonable and reliable
settings?)
- I would donate at least $100 per year (If a thousand people joined me that
would be $100K… Could one person full time, or several people part-time sign
up for that?
- I would donate a few years in advance… say three years… (If this would help
someone/some-few decide to do this)
- I would also help out. This assumes the individual or small core team would
dedicate sufficient time to partition the tasks in a way that would facilitate
widespread involvement.

Questions:

Ignoring resources (money, people, etc) is it reasonable to build and maintain
such a distribution?

Is $100k per year enough? If not how much is needed?

Are 1000 users at $100 reasonable to expect? How about 2000 at $50? Or 500 at
$200 (I would consider donating $200/year) Strike that… If this existed today
I would donate $200.


I know that the conventional wisdom is that Linux audio is not for “new Linux
users” but I think that is the root of the “chicken/egg” problem that we have
here. A predictable, stable, reliable audio distribution may generate the
support that the particular distribution (and Linux audio in general) needs to
get to the next level.

Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
  

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Scott-261]

> Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?

I've tried Ubuntu Studio, Studio64, Musix, and Fedora/CCRMA.  I agree with pretty much
everything you said in your post.  My favorite, because it's worked so flawlessly for
me, is Fedora/CCRMA.  I have a long history of working with RedHat professionally so
I'm tilted in favor of RPM based distributions.

-Scott

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Ronald Stewart]

wow Patrick! - Thanks for the mention :)

Ronald Stewart
www.indamixx.com

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Scott <lau@...> wrote:

> Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?

I've tried Ubuntu Studio, Studio64, Musix, and Fedora/CCRMA.  I agree with pretty much
everything you said in your post.  My favorite, because it's worked so flawlessly for
me, is Fedora/CCRMA.  I have a long history of working with RedHat professionally so
I'm tilted in favor of RPM based distributions.

-Scott

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Jostein Chr. Andersen-3]

On Thursday 04 June 2009 01.09.32 jrogers wrote:
...
> I know that the conventional wisdom is that Linux audio is not for “new
> Linux users” but I think that is the root of the “chicken/egg” problem that
> we have here. A predictable, stable, reliable audio distribution may
> generate the support that the particular distribution (and Linux audio in
> general) needs to get to the next level.
>
> Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?

Is there really need for another distribution? The problem people have is the
RT-kernel, especially in relation to Nvidia and ATI cards and often way to old
apps. Well, it's some problems problems too, such just have a working system
when everything is installed.

The mainstream distros does provide excellent infra structure for users,
applications and package repository systems, why use efforts on making a new
distro when the need is a stable reliable RT-kernel and an environment that in
a easy way makes it possible to use newer applications such as Ardour 2.8,
Rosegarden 1.7.3? Will a conservative distro provide the community with newer
apps?

This last six months, Ubuntu seem to have most RT-problems, but other distros
are also affected, any distro can have this kind of RT-problems later.

I've used/tried Musix (outdated), JAD (outdated), Ubuntu-studio (outdated
(8.04) and unreliable (9.04)) and 64studio (outdated, and the current beta 3
don't boot on my system), and right now, Fedora10/CCRMA 64 works; this
realities are quite different for everyone.

So a functional RT-kernel project for Debian (derivatives) would be nice for a
start.


Jostein




_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[rosea]

Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:

> On Thursday 04 June 2009 01.09.32 jrogers wrote:
> ...
>  
>> I know that the conventional wisdom is that Linux audio is not for “new
>> Linux users” but I think that is the root of the “chicken/egg” problem that
>> we have here. A predictable, stable, reliable audio distribution may
>> generate the support that the particular distribution (and Linux audio in
>> general) needs to get to the next level.
>>
>> Can we “prime this pump” with a conservative but very useful distribution?
>>    
>
> Is there really need for another distribution? The problem people have is the
> RT-kernel, especially in relation to Nvidia and ATI cards and often way to old
> apps. Well, it's some problems problems too, such just have a working system
> when everything is installed.
>
> The mainstream distros does provide excellent infra structure for users,
> applications and package repository systems, why use efforts on making a new
> distro when the need is a stable reliable RT-kernel and an environment that in
> a easy way makes it possible to use newer applications such as Ardour 2.8,
> Rosegarden 1.7.3? Will a conservative distro provide the community with newer
> apps?
>
> This last six months, Ubuntu seem to have most RT-problems, but other distros
> are also affected, any distro can have this kind of RT-problems later.
>
> I've used/tried Musix (outdated), JAD (outdated), Ubuntu-studio (outdated
> (8.04) and unreliable (9.04)) and 64studio (outdated, and the current beta 3
> don't boot on my system), and right now, Fedora10/CCRMA 64 works; this
> realities are quite different for everyone.
>
> So a functional RT-kernel project for Debian (derivatives) would be nice for a
> start.
>
>
>  

There is someone working on an default Debian RT kernel, but isn't very
easy to get that into Debian, but they are open for it.

I think most of what I've read is just another call (as far as Debian
derivatives are concerned), to join the Debian Multimedia Team and help
maintaining some packages.

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia

It's the best thing you can do if we want to enjoy up to date packages.

But unfortunately most of people here are so proud that they can build
packages their own, that they never thought about the idea that building
for others too in an official way would not only help themselves, but
also others and Linux audio in general...

When more people join, the quality will be improved, and in the end less
time will be wasted for tweaking the system instead of making music.


\r



_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Ray Rashif]

Anyone is free to create yet another distribution. Nobody should have the authority to prevent any such initiative, even if it's an inconvenience (adds more to choose from; adds more confusion?). What everyone should do, however, is find a balance between convenience and accessibility, by which I refer to the current norm of having a specialised platform (operating system + packages) in order to make Linux audio "accessible".

The problem with the current approach is that maintaining a specialised distribution means basically just that - maintaining a distribution. This involves the same manpower required to run a proper desktop platform, if your intention is to "reach out to the masses". One other problem is that each of these "mainstream" parent distributions have a particular release cycle, which the respective initiative must follow. Often times, since Linux audio is an effort primarily still in development stages, users see the need to get their software from upstream project managers. In essence, a Linux audio distro initiative is a bleeding-edge initiative. Even a stable platform like 64Studio may not be considered functional by the masses.

The solution to this is to:

(1) have a rolling-release cycle

(2) provide only add-on packages; not a distribution

(3) have a framework to easily build software from upstream and add to the package manager

For the vast majority, from what I have seen and heard (not experienced though), Sidux meets these criteria. It is:

(1) Debian-based; convenient

(2) Rolling; accessible

(3) There are tools to create a package from a local build

For others, and from personal experience, there are Gentoo and Arch. I can speak for both, because I've spent quite a lot of time on the former, and am settled entirely with the latter for over 2 years. The main difference between these two is that one is solely a source-based platform, which I've come to find is more on the inconvenient side. With a bleeding-edge initiative, one may have to compile software, but not the entire platform. This is what Arch solves. To both sides of the spectrum of Linux users (new and advanced), Arch has its demerits. However, for a specialised platform, the merits are overwhelming:

(1) Rolling.

(2) No split packages; package foobar means software foobar; you get what and how upstream intends you to get.

(3) Easy and code-simple package management for both binary and source, thanks to:

    (a) simple buildscripts; it takes one mere minutes to add a local build as a binary to the package database.

    (b) (2) directly means there are no further headaches while scripting a new package.

(4) Due to the meta nature of the distribution, there's absolutely 0 need for another distribution if the intention is to make it accessible for specialised use.

However, both of these are not for the "masses" or mainstream Linux users.

Conclusion: See the project highlighted in the previous mail? That's the saviour. An agnostic repository (within the parent distribution domain) serving a whole load of users - precisely what CCRMA (or the other similar initiatives) is. It's really simple - you don't need another distribution or installer disc. You just install your desired Debian-based distribution and add packages from that repository. Make that something like Sidux and you're rockin'.

So I'd urge anyone thinking of creating an audio distro to put his/her efforts into packaging for the Debian Multimedia Team (or help out in others like CCRMA, Gentoo ProAudio, ArchAudio etc).

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Patrick Shirkey]

On 06/04/2009 04:23 PM, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
>
> When more people join, the quality will be improved, and in the end less
> time will be wasted for tweaking the system instead of making music.
>
>
>    


For a lot of people tweaking the system is their goal. Partly because if
they actually produced anything it would be subject to criticism and in
many cases wouldn't be what they wanted to achieve but instead just a
product (snapshot) of their tweaking.

There's room for everyone to allow for being originally creative,
commercially viable and playing around with the latest toys/code.

Considering that there are several distros that attempt to make audio
and multimedia apps easier for people to get access to and produce
results with I think we are spoiled for choice.

If someone really wants to have a perfect setup they should be prepared
to spend the money on getting someone else to do it for them or spend
the time doing  it themselves.

Compiling an rt kernel is not brain surgery.  Having a pre compiled rt
kernel option is a useful addition to the suite of tools. If we had a
dedicated list of proven hardware setups with kernel versions, links to
the various precompiled rt kernels for each distro and basic build steps
that would also assist people who are taking the plunge.

Similar to the Hackintosh "known to work with x hardware" pages.

Is there already someone maintaining a page like this? I will add a link
to the LAU-guide in the next update which is coming soon.

If not I will be happy to make some changes to the low latency howto to
cover the points above.

Also can you send me the link to the debian rt kernel project please?

And if anyone else knows of specific links to other rt kernel projects
repos please send them through.


Cheers.

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd







> \r
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@...
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>    
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Patrick Shirkey]

On 06/04/2009 04:39 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

Anyone is free to create yet another distribution. Nobody should have the authority to prevent any such initiative, even if it's an inconvenience (adds more to choose from; adds more confusion?). What everyone should do, however, is find a balance between convenience and accessibility, by which I refer to the current norm of having a specialised platform (operating system + packages) in order to make Linux audio "accessible".

The problem with the current approach is that maintaining a specialised distribution means basically just that - maintaining a distribution. This involves the same manpower required to run a proper desktop platform, if your intention is to "reach out to the masses". One other problem is that each of these "mainstream" parent distributions have a particular release cycle, which the respective initiative must follow. Often times, since Linux audio is an effort primarily still in development stages, users see the need to get their software from upstream project managers. In essence, a Linux audio distro initiative is a bleeding-edge initiative. Even a stable platform like 64Studio may not be considered functional by the masses.

The solution to this is to:

(1) have a rolling-release cycle

(2) provide only add-on packages; not a distribution

(3) have a framework to easily build software from upstream and add to the package manager

For the vast majority, from what I have seen and heard (not experienced though), Sidux meets these criteria. It is:

(1) Debian-based; convenient

(2) Rolling; accessible

(3) There are tools to create a package from a local build

For others, and from personal experience, there are Gentoo and Arch.

Hi,

This is the list of current distros (in no particular order) that I have picked up in this thread. If I have missed any please let me know. I will update the lau-guide with this list.


Sidux
Gentoo
Arch
64Studio
Transmission
Musix
Debian Multimedia Team
Gentoo ProAudio
ArchAudio
Planet CCRMA




Cheers.

I can speak for both, because I've spent quite a lot of time on the former, and am settled entirely with the latter for over 2 years. The main difference between these two is that one is solely a source-based platform, which I've come to find is more on the inconvenient side. With a bleeding-edge initiative, one may have to compile software, but not the entire platform. This is what Arch solves. To both sides of the spectrum of Linux users (new and advanced), Arch has its demerits. However, for a specialised platform, the merits are overwhelming:

(1) Rolling.

(2) No split packages; package foobar means software foobar; you get what and how upstream intends you to get.

(3) Easy and code-simple package management for both binary and source, thanks to:

    (a) simple buildscripts; it takes one mere minutes to add a local build as a binary to the package database.

    (b) (2) directly means there are no further headaches while scripting a new package.

(4) Due to the meta nature of the distribution, there's absolutely 0 need for another distribution if the intention is to make it accessible for specialised use.

However, both of these are not for the "masses" or mainstream Linux users.

Conclusion: See the project highlighted in the previous mail? That's the saviour. An agnostic repository (within the parent distribution domain) serving a whole load of users - precisely what CCRMA (or the other similar initiatives) is. It's really simple - you don't need another distribution or installer disc. You just install your desired Debian-based distribution and add packages from that repository. Make that something like Sidux and you're rockin'.

So I'd urge anyone thinking of creating an audio distro to put his/her efforts into packaging for the Debian Multimedia Team (or help out in others like CCRMA, Gentoo ProAudio, ArchAudio etc).

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
  

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Florian Faber-2]

Patrick Shirkey wrote:

> This is the list of current distros (in no particular order) that I have
> picked up in this thread. If I have missed any please let me know. I
> will update the lau-guide with this list.
>
>
> Gentoo
> Gentoo ProAudio

pro-audio is an overlay. It is still Gentoo, it just adds another set of
ebuilds.


Flo
--
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4          x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[hollunder]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:03:09 +0200
Florian Faber <faber@...> wrote:

> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
> > This is the list of current distros (in no particular order) that I
> > have picked up in this thread. If I have missed any please let me
> > know. I will update the lau-guide with this list.
> >
> >
> > Gentoo
> > Gentoo ProAudio
>
> pro-audio is an overlay. It is still Gentoo, it just adds another set
> of ebuilds.
>
>
> Flo

Similar for ArchAudio, it's just an additional repository.

Philipp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Ray Rashif]

Hi Patrick

A listing like that is available at http://linux-sound.org/distro.html but it may not be up-to-date. So here is yours categorised:

== Distributions ==

64 Studio - http://64studio.com

Musix - http://www.musix.org.ar

== Bundles ==

Planet CCRMA (for Red Hat systems) - http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/

Debian Multimedia (for Debian GNU/Linux systems) - http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/

Pro-Audio Gentoo Overlay (for Gentoo GNU/Linux systems) - http://proaudio.tuxfamily.org

ArchAudio (for Arch Linux systems) - http://archaudio.org

== Not Accounted For ==

Sidux (just a distro; not an audio distro)

Transmission (customized 64 Studio; source location unknown)

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Dave Phillips]

Ray Rashif wrote:
> Hi Patrick
>
> A listing like that is available at http://linux-sound.org/distro.html 
> but it may not be up-to-date.

It is kept up-to-date. Transmission was added to the list this morning.

Best,

dp

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Raffaele Morelli-3]

2009/6/4 Dave Phillips <dlphillips@...>

>
> Ray Rashif wrote:
> > Hi Patrick
> >
> > A listing like that is available at http://linux-sound.org/distro.html
> > but it may not be up-to-date.
>
> It is kept up-to-date. Transmission was added to the list this morning.
>
> Best,
>
> dp

We must inform the WebMaster that Bardix link is broken.

-r
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Dave Phillips]

Raffaele Morelli wrote:

re: Bardix at linux-sound.org :
>
>
> We must inform the WebMaster that Bardix link is broken.
>
>  

Thank you for the note. I google'd for the project and its maintainer,
got no joy. The link has been removed.

However, while searching for Bardix I did discover that Bardex (sic) has
something to do with enemas. :-/

Best,

dp

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user