Audio Distribution Proposal...

[Alex Stone]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Atte Andre
> Jensen<atte.jensen@...> wrote:
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems that this thread's energy got shorted out somewhere.
>>>
>>> Too bad. Fun read.
>>
>> Something good came out of it, however; I'm now running arch (instead of
>> ubuntu) and loving it.
>>
>> --
>> Atte
>>
>> http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
>>
>
> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo? I
> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still
> either frustrates or scares off so many people, but it sounds like you
> made a good decision. I hear good things about Arch.
>
> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.
>
> Just an idea about how this could lead somewhere different, if enough
> people thought it important enough to actually undertake.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@...
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>

Mark, even better would be native 64bit across the board.

Alex.

www.openoctave.org

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

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM, alex stone<compose59@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Atte Andre
>> Jensen<atte.jensen@...> wrote:
>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seems that this thread's energy got shorted out somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad. Fun read.
>>>
>>> Something good came out of it, however; I'm now running arch (instead of
>>> ubuntu) and loving it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Atte
>>>
>>> http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
>>>
>>
>> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo? I
>> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still
>> either frustrates or scares off so many people, but it sounds like you
>> made a good decision. I hear good things about Arch.
>>
>> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
>> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
>> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
>> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
>> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
>> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
>> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
>> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
>> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
>> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
>> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
>> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
>> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.
>>
>> Just an idea about how this could lead somewhere different, if enough
>> people thought it important enough to actually undertake.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>> Linux-audio-user@...
>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>
>
> Mark, even better would be native 64bit across the board.
>
> Alex.
>

What do you mean by 'native' 64-bit?

I run 64-bit Gentoo with all apps built as 64-bit. Have for 4-5 years now.

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

[Alex Stone]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM, alex stone<compose59@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@...> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Atte Andre
>>> Jensen<atte.jensen@...> wrote:
>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems that this thread's energy got shorted out somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad. Fun read.
>>>>
>>>> Something good came out of it, however; I'm now running arch (instead of
>>>> ubuntu) and loving it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Atte
>>>>
>>>> http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo? I
>>> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still
>>> either frustrates or scares off so many people, but it sounds like you
>>> made a good decision. I hear good things about Arch.
>>>
>>> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
>>> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
>>> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
>>> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
>>> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
>>> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
>>> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
>>> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
>>> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
>>> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
>>> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
>>> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
>>> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.
>>>
>>> Just an idea about how this could lead somewhere different, if enough
>>> people thought it important enough to actually undertake.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>>> Linux-audio-user@...
>>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>>
>>
>> Mark, even better would be native 64bit across the board.
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>
> What do you mean by 'native' 64-bit?
>
> I run 64-bit Gentoo with all apps built as 64-bit. Have for 4-5 years now.
>
> - Mark
>

|As do i Mark. i meant i don't understand why we should pursue 32bit
as a continued option if, where possible, apps can be written for
64bit by default.

Just my view.
Alex.

--
www.openoctave.org

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

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM, alex stone<compose59@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM, alex stone<compose59@...> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@...> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Atte Andre
>>>> Jensen<atte.jensen@...> wrote:
>>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that this thread's energy got shorted out somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad. Fun read.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something good came out of it, however; I'm now running arch (instead of
>>>>> ubuntu) and loving it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Atte
>>>>>
>>>>> http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo? I
>>>> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still
>>>> either frustrates or scares off so many people, but it sounds like you
>>>> made a good decision. I hear good things about Arch.
>>>>
>>>> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
>>>> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
>>>> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
>>>> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
>>>> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
>>>> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
>>>> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
>>>> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
>>>> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
>>>> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
>>>> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
>>>> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
>>>> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.
>>>>
>>>> Just an idea about how this could lead somewhere different, if enough
>>>> people thought it important enough to actually undertake.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>>>> Linux-audio-user@...
>>>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mark, even better would be native 64bit across the board.
>>>
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by 'native' 64-bit?
>>
>> I run 64-bit Gentoo with all apps built as 64-bit. Have for 4-5 years now.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>
> |As do i Mark. i meant i don't understand why we should pursue 32bit
> as a continued option if, where possible, apps can be written for
> 64bit by default.
>
> Just my view.
> Alex.

And every view is important.

In my experience doing audio there are a lot of little gotchas that
pop up trying to interface to the real world where everyone is using
Pro Tools, media formats are Windows proprietary and generally 32-bit.
Wine, VSTs, M$ data audio/video formats. There's just lots of little
problems which I've found on my 64-bit machine which, when tested on a
32-bit Gentoo machine often aren't problems at all.

With that in mind I suggest I'd be more compatible running 32-bit
apps. They are easier to virtualize, should I want to use Windows
under vmware for instance (even though I do that now under 64-bit) and
probably they use less memory. There's any number of reasons. However
using a 64-bit kernel would ensure the kernel has access to everything
in the machine.

But again, I'm just parroting without truly understanding what I saw
Linus and a few others talking about. I got interested in the subject
and decided to post it hear as I don't think I've seen anyone else
interested in the subject yet. There are other issues, like dual tool
chains if you need to build your own kernel as well as apps, etc., but
none of that is insurmountable I think.

Here's the comment that for got me interested a week or so ago:

<QUOTE>
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> A major problem is that distros don't seem to be willing to push 64-bit
> kernels for 32-bit distros.  There are a number of good (and
> not-so-good) reasons why users may want to run a 32-bit userspace, but
> not running a 64-bit kernel on capable hardware is just problematic.

Yeah, that's just stupid. A 64-bit kernel should work well with 32-bit
tools, and while we've occasionally had compat issues (the intel gfx
people used to claim that they needed to work with a 32-bit kernel because
they cared about 32-bit tools), they aren't unfixable or even all _that_
common.

And they'd be even less common if the whole "64-bit kernel even if you do
a 32-bit distro" was more common.

The nice thing about a 64-bit kernel is that you should be able to build
one even if you don't in general have all the 64-bit libraries. So you
don't need a full 64-bit development environment, you just need a compiler
that can generate code for both (and that should be the default on x86
these days).

                       Linus
</QUOTE>

Again, this is for the sake of conversation only, but when it's Linus
and Peter it seems like maybe I should pay attention, you know what I
mean? ;-)

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

[Atte]

Mark Knecht wrote:

> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo?

That would be arch linux.

> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still
> either frustrates or scares off so many people

I not the more hard-core linux user around, but I would say above
average :-) And I can tell you I went after gentoo with and open mind
and time on my hands and still couldn't make that first boot. I might
have simply lost my way, and overlooked to obvious/simple/actual path,
but then that's what I did.

 > but it sounds like you
> made a good decision. I hear good things about Arch.

It seems to be working out very well. A bit (or quite a bit, depending
on how you look at it) of hand-config and per-package install, but it's
a quite simple distro, very straight-ahead and seems very responsive and
up-to-date.

--
Atte

http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Marc-Olivier Barre-3]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:11:14 +0200, Atte Andre Jensen
<atte.jensen@...> wrote:

> Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo?
>
> That would be arch linux.
>
>> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still
>> either frustrates or scares off so many people
>
> I not the more hard-core linux user around, but I would say above
> average :-) And I can tell you I went after gentoo with and open mind
> and time on my hands and still couldn't make that first boot. I might
> have simply lost my way, and overlooked to obvious/simple/actual path,
> but then that's what I did.

You mean you tried the quick install guide and still couldn't get it to
boot ? I'm amazed ! It really should be straight forward.

I'm sure you weren't that far :) I use this guide whenever I need a new
gentoo box. I even managed to run that remotely on my hosted server (which
was not intended by the provider to run gentoo 64 bit in the first place...
:D)

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml

--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco@...
www.MarcOChapeau.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Atte]

Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:

> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml

Wohoow, that is some step-by-step-by-step-by-step guide you have there.

Not sure where I went wrong, maybe at:

(The following is an example, adapt it to your hardware)
livecd root # modprobe 3w-9xxx
livecd root # modprobe r8169

Notice the "adapt it to your hardware"-part :-)

Anyways, as I said, it's probably just me that's too stupid...

--
Atte

http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Atte Andre Jensen<atte.jensen@...> wrote:

> Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml
>
> Wohoow, that is some step-by-step-by-step-by-step guide you have there.
>
> Not sure where I went wrong, maybe at:
>
> (The following is an example, adapt it to your hardware)
> livecd root # modprobe 3w-9xxx
> livecd root # modprobe r8169
>
> Notice the "adapt it to your hardware"-part :-)
>
> Anyways, as I said, it's probably just me that's too stupid...
>
> --
> Atte

I doubt you're the least bit stupid. A Gentoo install is a bit of a
stretch the first time you you do it but I Can promise you that if you
want to do a basic install the way that document lays out the machine
then those instructions work. If you want to set up some different
partitions for things, like I always stick /var on its own partition
so that log files don't fill up the root partition, then you do need
to make some modifications, but those instructions work. Used them 3-4
times in the last year.

Now, as for the install, it does require a network to get very far. If
you can get to the network from the install CD then you can do it in
the install if you figure out what they've set up. However, if you
cannot get to the network but your network hardware is supported in
the kernel you can do an install, duplicate the CD environment on your
drive, build a new kernel (even if you have to put the tar.bz files on
a CD or USB stick to get them on the new box) and anfter you have your
kernel you'll have the network and can do the final update to make the
machine 100% up to date.

EVEN if you don't end up using Gentoo maybe you want to make a 20GB
partition, do the install and dual boot for a while. Doing a Gentoo
install successfully is good learning for any Linux box.

Good luck and if you even want help with this sort of thing feel free to write.

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

[Atte]

Mark Knecht wrote:

> EVEN if you don't end up using Gentoo maybe you want to make a 20GB
> partition, do the install and dual boot for a while. Doing a Gentoo
> install successfully is good learning for any Linux box.

I'm sure you're right! And I'm sure it's a fine distro once installed!

> Good luck and if you even want help with this sort of thing feel free to write.

Thanks, I might do that.

--
Atte

http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Joel Roth-2]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:58:01AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.

A significant advantage of the 64-bit kernel
is that the processor can make use of more registers.

In addition to ease of virtualization, an advantage of
32-bit userland, is that code is smaller, so that cache is
used more efficiently.

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

[Ray Rashif]

There's nothing _significantly useful_ to learn from Gentoo that you cannot learn from Arch. In fact, they serve the same crowd, except the latter serves the less patient. The competency required to set up _and_ maintain is similar for both. You are required to do a lot of reading, and some thinking in case you find yourself in a pinch. Neither is what I would call "hardcore", because hardcore in terms of computing is something like http://www.coreboot.org/ or designing your own kernel. Even a project like LFS is not "hardcore", it's "educational".

With that said, there's no reason you couldn't have configured a Gentoo system if you managed to configure Arch (aside from time and patience of course). However, why someone at this point of time would be at such a position is due to the Gentoo Wiki's current state. As you may or may not know, there was a problem with the hosting/server and most if not all of the content had to be ported to a new database. I used to thank the Gentoo community for the _largest_ documentation one could ever find, but now it's just a mess. Sure, you could get some of them from http://www.gentoo-wiki.info/, but it's no longer the same. There were plenty of helpful material that newbies to Gentoo couldn't do without.

Anyone who has been running Gentoo can continue to do so, but if you're planning to deploy a platform anew I'd advise against Gentoo. If the trouble is reading documentation or competency, then Sabayon is a better bet than even Arch. You still have the same control over your system which is necessary for most of the Linux audio crowd.

Now about hybrid architectures, _a lot_ of distros allow for multilib setups even if they come native by default. On the other hand, Arch does not, and will not for the foreseeable future, support multilib. That is purely technical, as running a hybrid system is actually tainting it [[ http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Current_state_of_Arch64_developement ]]. But the idea of a 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit userland is interesting.

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

[Atte]

Ray Rashif wrote:

Hi Ray.

Thanks for your reply.

> There's nothing _significantly useful_ to learn from Gentoo that you
> cannot learn from Arch.

Ok.

> Anyone who has been running Gentoo can continue to do so, but if you're
> planning to deploy a platform anew I'd advise against Gentoo.

Ok, I'll remember to ask here before I (maybe) throw my into gentoo
again in the future.

> Now about hybrid architectures, _a lot_ of distros allow for multilib
> setups even if they come native by default. On the other hand, Arch does
> not, and will not for the foreseeable future, support multilib.

I'm not sure what I would benefit from multilib. I've always been
running 32bit and have no plans to change that for now.

--
Atte

http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk   http://virb.com/atte
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

>  and most if not all of the content had to be ported to a new
> database. I used to thank the Gentoo community for the _largest_
> documentation one could ever find, but now it's just a mess. Sure, you
> could get some of them from http://www.gentoo-wiki.info/, but it's no
> longer the same. There were plenty of helpful material that newbies to
> Gentoo couldn't do without.
>

I believe the server actually got attacked.. I'm no newbie.. but between
the forums and even just the main documentation listing I still believe
there is enough there. On top of that the documentation is coming back
together.. BTW in terms of audio.. the gentoo pro audio list is fairly
quiet and very friendly......


> Anyone who has been running Gentoo can continue to do so, but if
> you're planning to deploy a platform anew I'd advise against Gentoo.
> If the trouble is reading documentation or competency, then Sabayon is
> a better bet than even Arch.

Sabayon is simply a pre-rolled Gentoo.. (maybe stage 4 or 5 even??) and
yes an excellent point for newbie.. but I found for pro-audio stuff I
was running into dependency hell.. alot easier to start from stage 3
install...


>  You still have the same control over your system which is necessary
> for most of the Linux audio crowd.

> linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

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

[Ray Rashif]

Yes that's an important point. The overlay is an asset - a huge one at that. Dunno, never heard of anybody using Sabayon (which is stage 4 gentoo + custom overlays + binary pkg manager + a lot of useless things and ideas like the pkg manager guessing your needs and when you should watch porn) for audio. Even I myself used it on a laptop and had Gentoo on a desktop for DAW. That was some 2-3 years ago. But well, if just one person builds and hosts binaries, it might be a solution ey?

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

[nescivi]

On Wednesday 17 June 2009 14:19:00 alex stone wrote:

> >>> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
> >>> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
> >>> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
> >>> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
> >>> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
> >>> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
> >>> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
> >>> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
> >>> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
> >>> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
> >>> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
> >>> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
> >>> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.
> >>>
> >>> Just an idea about how this could lead somewhere different, if enough
> >>> people thought it important enough to actually undertake.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Mark, even better would be native 64bit across the board.
> >>
> >> Alex.
> >
> > What do you mean by 'native' 64-bit?
> >
> > I run 64-bit Gentoo with all apps built as 64-bit. Have for 4-5 years
> > now.
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> |As do i Mark. i meant i don't understand why we should pursue 32bit
> as a continued option if, where possible, apps can be written for
> 64bit by default.

There are some apps out there, which are quite complex to rewrite for 64bit,
and it will take a couple of years, before rewrites of these apps are there
that work 64bit.

Most notably the language part of SuperCollider, because of the way certain
things are encoded for the garbage collection parts (as far as I understood).

Right now, I'm building the lang in a 32bit chroot, but it would be much
nicer, if I could build it linking with 32bit libs, without the chroot.

Debian is making some steps towards making this easier the the 32bit apt
package, but up till now I found the documentation rather unclear as to how to
actually do something useful with it, so I haven't really tried it out yet.

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

[Brent Busby]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Mark Knecht wrote:

> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an
> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have
> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important
> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution
> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with
> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit
> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of
> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On
> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized
> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward
> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others
> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.
> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.

Well, that's not a setup I'd want for myself (though I do see the
advantages you're mentioning), but for people who want to do that, it's
probably not something that the distro needs to specifically package.
There's nothing at all really stopping you from putting a 64-bit kernel
on your 32-bit install, and actually at work, I have even done that on
some of the nodes of one of our research computational clusters, where
almost everything is 32-bit, but we still want the extra memory.  You
just drop your kernel on.

The only package I've seen that seems to absolutely hate that setup is
iptables, since it comes with userland commands that integrate very
tightly with what's in the kernel, and it doesn't seem to work to have
the binaries be 32-bit and the kernel be 64.  You'd probably have to get
a 64-bit iptables package to make that work.

--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ UNIX Systems Admin +  banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago +  eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ Physical Sciences Div. +  Shakespeare.  Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ James Franck Institute +  we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[daemian]

2009/6/4 Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@...>

>
> 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.
>
> <snip>
> 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.

Sorry, am catching up rather late, but one thing about this discussion
has left me wondering:
does a realtime kernel have to be distribution-specific ?

I mean:
a) Could there be an attempt to patch and compile a
distribution-agnostic realtime kernel ? (Is there one already ?)

b) Or is it that every distribution expects its kernel to include some
home-made kernel modifications, and hence requires patching their own
specific brand from source ?

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

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste
Mestelan<mestelan@...> wrote:

> 2009/6/4 Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@...>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> <snip>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Sorry, am catching up rather late, but one thing about this discussion
> has left me wondering:
> does a realtime kernel have to be distribution-specific ?
>
> I mean:
> a) Could there be an attempt to patch and compile a
> distribution-agnostic realtime kernel ? (Is there one already ?)
>
> b) Or is it that every distribution expects its kernel to include some
> home-made kernel modifications, and hence requires patching their own
> specific brand from source ?
>

The rt-kernel project is completely distro agnostic. It's your distro
that potentially makes any kernel distro specific. I don't know what
distros might do this for the rt-kernel, if any.

The rt-kernel project always patches the kernel.org kernel and even
though I run Gentoo I do not run Gentoo's kernels as I don't know what
they've added or why. I figure if it's important they'll post it back
to kernel.org and Linus will decide. There is absolutely no problem
running this kernel on a Gentoo box and I don't know of any problems
running it on any distro box. you just don't get any special stuff the
distro package thinks is important to add.

On Gentoo we have the pro-audio overlay which makes the
distro-agnostic rt-sources available. It's equivalent to me going to
the rt-sources site and grabbing all that stuff but easier. emerge
gentoo-sources or emerge rt-sources. Either way I do exactly the same
amount of work, but with rt-sources I get the vanilla kernel with rt
patches.

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