Re: Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:14:25 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

I didn't have problems with crashes either. I just had trouble setting
it up
so that I could get some sound out of it, and then I had trouble with the
vocabulary (they're all different) and being able to read the screen. A
debugger wouldn't help that.

Linux is like a new language.
No doubt.

Because it's so flexible and can do so many things for so many different
applications, it's confusing to use for a straightforward setup. At
least the
current version of Ardour defaults to consecutive interface inputs
assigned to
sequential tracks and the mixer L/R outputs are assigned to the first, or
only pair of interface outputs. If only the documentation had said something
like "Here are the defaults. If that's OK, you don't need to touch Jack
you need to change something." I might have started off on a better foot.

My biggest complaint is the device section of it.
Hw:0,1, vs dev/dsp(x) etc (can't exactly remember the terms, but it's
the drop down for your sound card outputs).

I had to keep playing with the thing in qjackctrl until it worked.

I simply don't have to get involved with that stuff at that level with

RIght. But how many hardware users do that when their hardware doesn't work?
Remember, we're dealing with a couple of hundred thousand users here who
are primarily musicians, not electronic technicians or software analysts.

Less today than yesterday, but my point is at least they stand a
chance even if it's looking for the burned components.

However, and this is important, IMHO, someone with a reasonable amount
of electronics skills picked up in the studio or throughout life , can
get somewhere troubleshooting gear.

True, if it's physical hardware.

Yes. That's my point.
Hand a person the source code to a Linux program, a debugger and tell
him to find why it crashes and most won't know where to begin.
At least with hardware the "smoke test" is a decent clue as to where
the problem might be :)

Right. So why do people here keep saying "you need to learn to use
a debugger"?

I don't know?
I don't believe that.
I've been using Linux off and on since the late mid 90's or so and
never used one.
I have compiled many a program though, but it's mainly follow the
bouncing ball and if it doesn't work I either search for the problem,
which is usually something I did wrong, or I find a tarball.

Note: in general, with major distributions, most of the programs are
in the respositories so compiling is rarely needed.

Relevant Pages

  • [SLE] More thoughts on SuSE and Novell
    ... This may sound good but I think this may be of interest. ... Current End Users of Linux ... may be in trouble. ... Check the headers for your unsubscription address ...
  • Re: WARNING to potential LINUX users
    ... And I did not ask specificly for linux supported hardware, ... IDE CD-ROMS or DVD drives all ... > the sound events were turned on and the mixer showed volume was maximum ...
  • Re: WARNING to potential LINUX users
    ... > audio which is not supported by linux. ... >> The very first thing I noticed was that there was NO SOUND even though ... >>started over with SuSE. ... So much for installing right out of the box on ...
  • [OT]: Substitute VMS for Linux in this article
    ... Linux problems, including claims that sound isn't that important in business ... Rick Spencer on the general issue of Linux hardware support: ... As an analogy, say you worked for Coca-Cola since Windows 95 came out, say ...
  • Re: Well, Windows is back on the disk.
    ... >>>There's just some programs not working with sound at all. ... But that puts me even further and further away from Ubuntu, ... >>>And yet, using Windows XP the past three years on this laptop, ... >>i still don't get the point in trying ubuntu (linux), ...