In article ?= writes:

Anyway, you guys really aren't talking about Linux, so much as vendor
support for Linux. Right now, Bill Gates has the multimedia vendors
firmly in his embrace.

What we're really trying to talk about is DAW applications that run
under Unix and are reasonable alternatives to the Windows and Mac
applications that are well established for professional use. But
people keep changing the subject to something that they can talk about
enthusiastically when they don't have anything to contribute to the
original subject.

It's a common thing on Internet discussions, and as we all know, many
Internet mail and news servers as well as distribution systems run
under Linux.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I think PHP is more than popular (look at any PHP usage statistics) and
i had no trouble in contacting programmers when i needed it. support was
fast and spot on. the only thing you must make sure is to check all
knowledge (php bug tracker, google groups...) before sending nothing.
(just as you would do in any newsgroup before asking a question).

So what you're implying here is that contacting the programmer is the
second (or third or fourth) line in the support chain. If you ask a
question that's already been answered, the probably don't want to be
bothered with you. If you ask a really interesting question, however,
which may lead to a program enhancement or a bug fix, then they'll
listen. I'll admit that this isn't the sort of contact one can have
with a large company such as Microsoft, however it's quite common to
be able to provide direct feedback and get straight answers from the
developers of most of the non-freeware-user-supported audio
applications.

I don't think ardour, audacity or even protools will have ever a user
base as large as php, so your statement above falls apart.

Well, there's potential. If PHP is what I think it is, it's
essentially a programming tool for HTML development. Because web site
development or other interactive media programming isn't really a very
popular hobby (sure, there are plenty of people for whom their web
sites are their hobby, and some for whom it's their business), other
than the dozen or so common commands that are useful to know when
editing web site code, its user base is relatively small. On the other
hand, everybody who thinks he can sing and play an instrument wants to
record, which is why there are so many DAW programs already. If Ardour
or Audacity were to really catch on, they could blossom. But it takes
more than a few zealous Linux users who have "tried" Ardour to make it
popular with the "I'm a musician, not a computer geek" user who's
probably reading this post on AOL or through Google newsgroups.

Hey, I use the Windows version of Audacity myself now and then. I
assume the Linux version is essentially the same, unless two
independent developers are using the same name for an audio program.
But when I have "serious" work to do, which is primarily 2-track
editing, I go back to the comfort of Fast Edit. The way it works just
makes more sense to me than doing the same tasks with Audacity.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

The question posted bij the OP was:
I'm actually thinking about a project of home studio, linux based.

Do you think Ardour could be a serious choice for a personal but
"serious" home studio ?

So I think my answer:
I think for some starting with DAW it could be a good starting point.

is a better answer to the question than yours.

I wouldn't give such a brief answer without knowing more about the
OP's background and experience, and what he really wanted to do. Did
anyone give him the third degree about his comfort level with Linux,
if he has any experience with it at all?

Most people shrink at the concept of a dual-boot system, and most
casual users of audio programs don't want to dedicate a computer to
their audio work, even though that's a really good idea.

So your answer might have been a valid one, but only with more
information than the "I'm thinking about . . . ." background.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

alex bazan wrote:

Today i got my packages updated. I can tell what packages were updated
and to which version. More control that this i think it can't be done.
Also i could have requested before upgrading which were the new
packages, so i could only upgrade the ones that i need.

Wonderful, and I regularly have similar experiences with my Gentoo,
NetBSD, FreeBSD and RedHat systems.

Now what happens when your update (or one of mine) hoses up your
binutils or some core filesystem tool or something like that?
Sometimes, stuff just goes wrong.

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...

"Noah Roberts" wrote in message

Do you use Protools, Samplitude,Cubase or similar on a daily basis in a
professional or semi-professional setting?

Nope. I have NEVER used any of those systems. I use Linux DAW only.
I have no need for any of the above programs. If I am happy with Linux
why would I need those? The logic of your point here fails me utterly.

You clearly have no clue of thye capabilities of a current state of the
art
DAW then. And to be so proud of such a closed mind !!!

Linux DAW is MORE than adiquate for the home studio.

... but crap at spell-checking....

Those that live in glass houses...

On 2005-06-01, Bob Cain wrote:


JEDIDIAH wrote:

There's just not typically going to be an eye candy installer
for freeware/shareware type applications.

Nonetheless, for people for whom time is money and others
who consider an operating system to be something that is
just a necessasary nuisance standing between them and what
they want to do, such a standard and simple installer is a
mark of maturity.

Installers are a mark of immaturity, cruft and needless
complexity. No serious application should ever need much more than
being unarc'ed into it's final destination.



If Linux ever becomes essentially invisible to the extent
that Win and Mac systems are (but which are still too

It' doesn't get much more "invisible" then going into the
"add software" applet and selecting your application and having
the details just sort them out.

[deletia]

Your attempts to imply/state that Linux doesn't have simple,
easy and comprehensive application installation is simply an attempt
at FUD propagation as well as a weak lie.

Infact, the Linux network package managers are far more
appropriate for the typical Windows novice than what they are
usually subjected to.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117710098k@trad...

In article
writes:

Well, since he clipped out the question and changed it I don't think the
answer applies any longer.

===
Befo

I know it is used by pro studios.

Can you name one? Or two? Let us in rec.audio.pro judge how "pro" they
are.

=

Now:

I just asked you to name a couple of Linux audio workstation
applications that are used professionally.

I was trying to clarify what I was getting at. Sorry if you literal
guys think that I intentionally changed the question. However, feel
free to answer either one if you can.

Then again, they do mention a few applications that they use so I guess
the answer still applies even with the lowball tactics of the
questioner.

Just mentioning a few applications is meaningless to me. Who are these
profeessionals and what applications are they using? And perhaps if
I'm permitted to expand my question: "What are they using them for?"

If you were truly trying to help me understand the scope of
penetration of Linux and its applications into the pro audio market,
you'd show me what you know and not just question my ability to ask a
question.

Mike, did you actually follow the link? It does give an example of what
appears to be a reasonably professional outfit using linux and showing some
of the apps they're using, along with a fairly substantial client list.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117709201k@trad...

In article
writes:

Perhaps if you'd actually click the first link, you'd see how it answers
your question?

Are you so illiterate that you can't type an answer? Or are you
just trying to show your superiority here?

It's just like a Linux user to toss off an answer a question with a
link to click and go back to messing with his computer.



This is beneath you.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"John" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough. Linux can be used in proffesional applications
and certainly in home studios. Most of the arguments against Linux
audio and for tools like pro-tools and cubebase are just FUD and have
no basis in actual fact.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

Ever tried contacting Microsoft for technical support?

On 2005-06-01, Geoff Wood wrote:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message

apt-get install ardour*

It doesn't get any more "one step than that".

That's typing 22 characters. Instead of a double-click and possibly a
single OK click or two.

My description will cut-paste right into the relevant tool.

Your description isn't even complete.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
Richard Crowley wrote:
After scores of posts from the Linux community the lack of any
reference to non-geek package of Linux and an audio app (like

Considering that we're supposed to be coming up with what
are essentially Cubase replacements and the like, your request
is total gibberish.

There isn't any "non-geek" package in this area.

That's what I thought. End of discussion.

Have there ever been any? I can't imagine any better description for
ProTools or Sonic.

No Linux application I've ever seen has the kind of one-step
installation that most MSwin apps are distributed with.

You don't have much experience then, a problem common with many posters in
this thread.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


JEDIDIAH wrote:

There's just not typically going to be an eye candy installer
for freeware/shareware type applications.

Nonetheless, for people for whom time is money and others
who consider an operating system to be something that is
just a necessasary nuisance standing between them and what
they want to do, such a standard and simple installer is a
mark of maturity.

There are standard and simple installers. They just aren't the one you're
used to.

On 2005-06-01, Geoff Wood wrote:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-01, Geoff Wood wrote:

"Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:flf0n2-

How about an office suite? the browser? your newsreader? did they come
from sony with that one click also? can you upgrade them all, with one
click? like I can?

Yes.

Do tell.

What facility under Windows allows you to upgrade all classes
of applications, as well as the underlying OS with just one command or
button click.

This should be interesting.

Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what is
being altered in their boxes.

Can't deliver, eh? That's what I thought.

Your remark is a red herring as well as being incorrect on multiple
levels.

a) Most users do infact to remain ignorant. Otherwise, the Windows
boot process would look more like the Linux boot process.
b) apt-get upgrade will be VERY verbose.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

So? You haven't yet shown that Linux audio systems need more tech
support or that tech support is less available for them.

It's apparent from what the non-Linux users write here that some
support is needed for installation.

That is an interesting statement.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Jim Richardson" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:20:41 +1200,
Geoff Wood wrote:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-01, Geoff Wood wrote:

"Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:flf0n2-

How about an office suite? the browser? your newsreader? did they
come
from sony with that one click also? can you upgrade them all, with
one
click? like I can?

Yes.

Do tell.

What facility under Windows allows you to upgrade all classes
of applications, as well as the underlying OS with just one command or
button click.

This should be interesting.

Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what
is
being altered in their boxes.



please don't sidestep the question.


It's pretty obvious from your responces to this thread, that you are
desperately trying to avoid admitting that the package management system
on MS-Windows, is a pale shadow of the Linux based systems used by
Debian &etc.


There is no package management on Windows, beyond the OS. period and the
very weak and prone to breakage registry.

wrote:
For audio
work Audacity just does not compare to Audition.

Nor does it compare to Ardour.

On 2005-06-01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Geoff Wood wrote:
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message

Your inability or unwillingness to learn a new system has nothing to do
with that system's viability.

Nobody is arguing about Linux's vialibilty. this thread is about the
suitabilty of Linux for pro audio applications, and the existence thereof.

I still have yet to be convinced of the suitability of computers in general
for pro audio applications. Just get a tape machine and be done with it.
It works just fine.

If not for that demo that some musician did with an Atari ST and
Cubase ~ 15 years ago, I would tend to agree.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

Chel van Gennip wrote:

The question posted bij the OP was:
I'm actually thinking about a project of home studio, linux based.

Do you think Ardour could be a serious choice for a personal but
"serious" home studio ?

So I think my answer:
I think for some starting with DAW it could be a good starting point.

is a better answer to the question than yours. OP did not mention paying
costomers that ask "Do you have ProTools?"

And there you have it. If they ever find a weakness in Linux audio
they can go spend hundreds of dollars on what these 'pros' running
multi-million dollar studios under direct commision of the MPAA use.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117620635k@trad...

In article
writes:

I've never had a problem with IE, either. That doesn't negate that fact
that it is poor security. I'm not a typical user, and neither are you,
I suspect. In the hands of a typical user, the situation is grim. Much
more so than on Linux or OS X.

Perhaps so, until Linux or OS-X get into the hands of the "typical"
user. Then it will be worth the trouble to write viruses and security
worms for software running on those systems. There are plenty of
people patching Unix for security so there are plenty of people who
have the knowledge to create and exploit security holes. It's no fun
to screw up the system of a fellow hobbyist. It's only fun to screw up
the system of a major corporation or an innocent and clueless user.



No. Windows is exponentially more vulnerable due to a number of **** poor
design decisions.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, reddred

wrote
on Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:55:37 -0400
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Geoff Wood

wrote
on Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:04:38 +1200
:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message

apt-get install ardour*

It doesn't get any more "one step than that".

That's typing 22 characters. Instead of a double-click and possibly a
single OK click or two.

geoff

[2] A touch typist likes to keep his hands above the
"home keys": "ASDF" on the left, "JKL;" on the right.
While one can make nasty noises about the original
purpose of the QWERTY keyboard (in very olden times
the keys tended to jam; therefore the intent was to
make the touch typist type as slowly as possible :-) )
it's what many of us are trained on. The only
competing technology -- if one can call it that --
is the DVORAK keyboard. (I don't have comparison speeds
handy for the two.)

Either way, of course, the hands don't move much --
*until one has to pick up the entire hand and move
it over to the mouse*. This is a pain, and slows a
typist down; he has to locate the mouse, move it,
possibly click on a button, then locate the home keys
again on the hand that was using the mouse.[*]


This is probably the origin of the users distaste for typing at all, unless
she is in a 'text window' and can leave the mouse alone for a while. I've
often thought the web service interface, where completing a transaction
often requires shifting back and forth between keyboard and mouse to be
quite awkward - same with many word processors.

Agreed. However, one problem might be that it's not obvious enough on
many browsers that one *can* use the tab key, consistently -- if it's
possible to use the tab key consistently.

(It turns out on Firefox that I can tab through a page full of links
and hit CR to activate. There's hope yet. :-) )


For its part Windows does allow usage of the ALT key.
This key allows for selection of menus without having
to use the wired soapbar -- though it could be more
consistent. (It could be a lot more consistent in
Linux, too.)


This is a holdover from some 'guified' DOS apps and
windows 286 and 3.11, where the ALT and TAB keys had
a very consistent function. One could easily navigate
the GUI of wondows and bundled applications without a
mouse. This has become increasingly less so.

Agreed. It was nice enough, but I think most manufacturers
want to go the "J-button" route (it's a small button
ensconsced between the H and J which serves as a crude
joystick -- or maybe the J and K), manufacture a small
trackball in the keyboard (nice until it breaks) or just
throw in a mouse with the deal, as opposed to doing things
with the apps that allow for actual ease of navigation.
(Those J-buttons aren't all that hot, either.)


But it's highly naive to think that double-clicking is
easier than typing. Such, presumably, depends on the user.


You don't have to know anything, and the theory is that you
can figure it out more easily.

The self-documenting GUI is not one to be taken lightly.



[*] The Amiga had an interesting capability, which might have
existed on other systems. One can press and hold down
the left and right Amiga keys, and the main pointer would
be movable via the arrow keys. It was slightly clumsy
but very helpful for those who didn't have a mouse handy.

Windows has this still, I believe, marketed as an app for
people with disabilities.

No doubt there's an add-on somewhere. I'd have to look for it.


jb




--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, alex bazan

wrote
on Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:02:50 +0200
:
En/na Geoff Wood ha escrit:


Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what is
being altered in their boxes.

geoff



Today i got my packages updated. I can tell what packages were updated
and to which version. More control that this i think it can't be done.
Also i could have requested before upgrading which were the new
packages, so i could only upgrade the ones that i need.

By the way, all of you people who love GUI's, this could also could have
been done with a GUI (but then i wouldn't be able to cut and paste it
for you).

This is on a Mandrake/Mandriva distribution.

Who says not?

One straightforward GUI would have a main transcript
window and an entry window (for file locations and such;
a browse button would also be available), along with maybe
a control panel at the top and a display window that has
a graphical representation of the problem -- sort of like
a web browser with an extra text transcript window.

Admittedly, I'm not sure if anyone bothers, and I think a log
file might be better suited for part of the problem anyway.

There's a few issues here.

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117620712k@trad...

In article net writes:

If it's even on your mind you've already demonstrated our point
for us. Windows is essentially a pig (ms-dos) in lipstick that was never
engineered for constant, reliable, robust operation on a network.

My impression of Linux is that other than a core, it was never
engineered at all. It just grew, and is continuing to grow.


That would be yet another incorrect assumption on your part.

For its part Windows does allow usage of the ALT key.
This key allows for selection of menus without having
to use the wired soapbar -- though it could be more
consistent. (It could be a lot more consistent in
Linux, too.)


This is a holdover from some 'guified' DOS apps and windows 286 and 3.11,
where the ALT and TAB keys had a very consistent function. One could easily
navigate the GUI of wondows and bundled applications without a mouse. This
has become increasingly less so.

Most GUI apps have keyboard shortcuts. MS actually makes it pretty
easy to make them in their development environment. Glade also does a
similar thing. Make the label '&Save' or '_Save' and Alt-s presses the
button or selects the menu item.

Finding these keys can be as issue though. I am still trying to figure
out how to use just the keyboard in MSVC++.Net. It has the
multi-buffer thing that XEmacs does, but I can't find the key to switch
buffer. So I am constantly having to go
keyboard-Mous-key-mouse...and it is ****ing me off. I know it has
to be there though.

But it's highly naive to think that double-clicking is
easier than typing. Such, presumably, depends on the user.


You don't have to know anything, and the theory is that you can figure it
out more easily.

Fast startup but slow usage overall. Sure I can look at the interface
and be able to click click click and find things out, but later when I
know where everything is and how to use the program I would be faster
if I could do it from the keys. This takes *longer* to learn now
because the design is built for the mouse and hunting down key codes
can be difficult or impossible.

[*] The Amiga had an interesting capability, which might have
existed on other systems. One can press and hold down
the left and right Amiga keys, and the main pointer would
be movable via the arrow keys. It was slightly clumsy
but very helpful for those who didn't have a mouse handy.

Windows has this still, I believe, marketed as an app for people with
disabilities.

This comes with any system.

The one thing that comes in Windows that has no counterpart in Linux
that I would love to see is the Language bar. You can switch keyboard
mappings and entire languages with a couple of keys. In Linux you have
to run programs...you could probably map to keys but there it is... I
also have yet to get Chinese Input working though I admit I haven't
given it much time...Chinese would just be cool, I don't really know it
too well and don't use it for anything purposful.

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Bob Cain wrote:
Geoff Wood wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Things like disk defragmentation are an excellent example of the
annoyances
that Windows users have to put up with, that people in the rest of the
world don't really have to worry about.

The very occasion defrag (always when not otherwise in use) has never
been a
problem , imposition, or even incovenience to me.

And never a necessity. It merely enhances performance by
making files contiguous on the drive. Do these other file
systems do that automatically, or at all?

They do it automatically. There's a BSD paper called "The Berkeley
Self-Balancing Filesystem" from the late 1970s which explains how it
works. It's probably on the web somewhere.

This sort of thing was very innovative in 1980.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Its just that Microsoft missed the memo about it.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117579368k@trad...

In article .com
writes:

And most of us in rec.audio.pro can't understand how you Linux
preachers
can have the *audacity* to come into a professional group,

I am reading and posting in a Linux newsgroup.

Then keep it there and quit cross-posting. We'd like a little peace
and quiet over here.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Then just stay the hell out of the thread Mike. No one is forcing you to
read it.

--

www.blackcatcrossing.net

In article ,
wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I'd require folks to learn how to change their oil before they
are allowed to get a driver's license.

Yep... and change a flat also.

Changing a flat is sensible, as that is a situation that can reasonably
occur unexpectedly during normal operation of the vehicle.

Requiring that a driver know how to change the oil, on the other hand, is
ridiculous, because it is unrelated to any skills needed to operate a
vehicle, or to deal with situations that arise during the operation of the
vehicle.

--
--Tim Smith

Linønut wrote:
Kurt Albershardt poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:


you guys really aren't talking about Linux, so much as vendor
support for Linux. Right now, Bill Gates has the multimedia vendors
firmly in his embrace.

And there's the real issue. Users use applications. Give them the
right application, easy to use and dead reliable -- and 95+% of them
could care less what lies underneath it.


Seems to be true. They could care less if Windows sh*ts the bed
underneath them. That is now considered "normal" for computers.


But that violates the "dead reliable' requirement. If you can meet that
requirement you have a chance to subvert the dominant paradigm.

Kurt Albershardt poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

you guys really aren't talking about Linux, so much as vendor
support for Linux. Right now, Bill Gates has the multimedia vendors
firmly in his embrace.

And there's the real issue. Users use applications. Give them the
right application, easy to use and dead reliable -- and 95+% of them
could care less what lies underneath it.

Seems to be true. They could care less if Windows sh*ts the bed
underneath them. That is now considered "normal" for computers.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Kurt Albershardt poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Linønut wrote:

So does a community of volunteers.

Agreed, but you seem to be adopting an "authority sucks" posture.

No. OSS has many authorities. For example, Linus Torvalds (Linux) and
Richard Stallman (GNU). They would be nearly useless, though, without
the community.

Whatever happened to "question authority?" Good management (admittedly
damn difficult to find & keep) stands up to it.

OSS also has many instances of "question authority". That is why
projects fork, for example.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Linønut wrote:
poked his little head through the XP firewall and
said:


I think Linux is good for several things:
- servers,
- embedded systems, eg., kiosks that can use mozilla as an interface
- research machines, eg., graphics, scientific computation, etc

But I agree, Linux is not great for end-user application software. For
audio
work Audacity just does not compare to Audition. Nowhere near as nice.

I should mention that Linux can be practical for applications, but only
if a person is *already familiar with linux*, like for one of the above
uses...


you guys really aren't talking about Linux, so much as vendor
support for Linux. Right now, Bill Gates has the multimedia vendors
firmly in his embrace.


And there's the real issue. Users use applications. Give them the
right application, easy to use and dead reliable -- and 95+% of them
could care less what lies underneath it.

They would care about COST. In theory, if there were two equally stable and
useable apps on equally stable systems, they would choose the cheaper of
the two. Considering this, it is no wonder MS is trying so hard to keep
their monopoly since they are less than as stable as Linux.

In rec.audio.pro Tim Smith wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I'd require folks to learn how to change their oil before they
are allowed to get a driver's license.

Yep... and change a flat also.

Changing a flat is sensible, as that is a situation that can reasonably
occur unexpectedly during normal operation of the vehicle.

Requiring that a driver know how to change the oil, on the other hand, is
ridiculous, because it is unrelated to any skills needed to operate a
vehicle, or to deal with situations that arise during the operation of the
vehicle.

Understanding the mechanical workings of an automobile is not unrelated to
any skills needed to operate the vehicle, or to deal with situations that
arise during the operation of the vehicle.

--
Aaron

En/na Kurt Albershardt ha escrit:
alex bazan wrote:


Now what happens when your update (or one of mine) hoses up your
binutils or some core filesystem tool or something like that? Sometimes,
stuff just goes wrong.



if you upgrade things from unstable sources **** may happen. use always
packages from stable sources and you'll never have a problem (well ****
may happen also just like having heaven falling over your head).

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Logan Shaw

wrote
on Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:10:44 GMT
:
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"Tim Smith" wrote:

Windows usually
requires more maintenance than Linux or OS X.

Like what? I'm not arguing, I just don't get it. I've heard people say
that before, and I figure there must be something I'm missing. I'm a
total turd-for-brains when it comes to computers, and my XP laptop with
Pro Tools Mbox works fine, with no "maintenance" required.

Admittedly I've never tried anything Unix based, except our Mac G4. It
blows its brains out twice a week for no apparent reason whatsoever, and
I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do even a simple disk defrag
on that mother****er.

Why would you want to do a disk defrag? Are you having bad performance
that you think a defrag would fix? Or is it just because you believe
that it's necessary from experience in the Windows world?

Speaking of which, do you do defrags on Windows? If so, then your claim
of no maintenance on Windows isn't really true.

For the record (and we are both speaking anecdotally), I have been
using OS X for about 2.5 years, and so far I can only recall one time
it crashed, and that was obviously due to a defective video card (which
drew jumbled crud all over the screen -- problem went away when the
video card was replaced).

As a general comment on defrags: what, precisely, is being
defragged?

[1] The individual files? Good as far as it goes, but ...

[2] The files, and directories containing those files?

[3] The contiguous space left over?

Windows barely does [1], and that through a third-party
software piece, which used to be Diskeeper Lite before
they eviscerated it. (This on NT/2k; I don't know who
did the Win95/98 variant, which has a quite different
'look and feel'. That one doesn't do too badly on [3],
though I think it ignores [2].)

A tar backup/delete/restore would do [1], [2], and
maybe part of [3], especially if one tars up the entire
partition. ([3] can't be 100% done on ext2 as ext2 has
a sophisticated "grouping" strategy for file allocation.
I don't know enough about other partition types -- or,
for that matter, OSX/Darwin -- to say.)

There's also the issue on how the files interrelate.
Ideally, one would position the files on, say, Unreal
Tournament 2004, so that, when the game's finished loading
one file the head is precisely positioned for it to start
loading another (assuming that the metadata -- filenames,
block positions, etc. -- is already cached in RAM).
Since this isn't all that doable in the general case (in
UT2004 there are too many maps to optimize, for example!)
the best one can do is [1], [2], and [3], and maybe emulate
a "perfect packing" of some sort which would be a inorder
traversal of the filetree, as though it were restored
on a blank volume, the files being created contiguously
and sequentially.

And then NTFS screws up one's "perfect packing" anyway
once one wants to, say, do a project build. It's a losing
battle on Windows. :-)


So how come everyone says Windows is hard to live with?

My favorite example is when I had a hardware problem on my Windows
machine, so I built a new Windows machine (with a new boot disk)
and yanked the old disk and put it in the new machine. I could
see all my files, but half of them had mysterious permissions
problems. Even though I was logged in as an Administrator account,
I *still* couldn't even *read* these files, and they were just
regular data files that were created by a regular user, i.e. nothing
special. I kept hitting Properties on the files with permissions
errors, and there was just nothing in there that looked amiss.
Though XP is supposed to be a multi-user operating system, there
wasn't a tab where I could look at file ownership or access
control lists or anything, but I figured if it doesn't exist,
it can't be the problem.

Eventually I discovered that the problem was that Windows comes by
default configured with a mode called Simple File Sharing turned on.
Even though it has nothing *whatsoever* to do with *sharing* files,
this turns off the tab in a file's Properties dialog that lets you
see who owns the files and what the permissions are. So, it is
impossible to fix permissions errors for *local* access of files,
and the solution is to changing some file sharing thingy that
logically *cannot* be related. This is not my definition of "just
works" -- instead, it's my definition of a computing experience
that is either deliberately obfuscated or obfuscated because the
OS designers couldn't reason clearly enough to distinguish file
permissions from file sharing. Which, really, is quite astounding
when you consider that file permissions have been around for
something like 4 decades, if you include mainframes.


Brilliant! Not only have they shot themselves in the foot, they've
somehow managed to blow off part of their groin as well.

Ye gods.

But it's a good definition of "just works", in the sense that it
"just barely works"...

Another good example is a time when I brought my computer over to
a friend's house and wanted to share the internet connection
between his and my machine. I didn't have a separate router but
I did bring an old 10 megabit hub with me, so I figured I'd use
the built-in Windows Internet Connection Sharing. After a great
amount of struggle to set it up, I eventually found that Windows
simply can't do NAT (network address translation) unless you have
*two* physical ethernet interfaces, even though every other operating
system I've ever tried it on can do NAT on the same interface by
giving the interface two different IP addresses at once. Once I
did the research and found out that this simple task is seemingly
impossible on Windows, I decided to see if I could make my computer
(a Mac) do the sharing (NAT) instead. So, I went to the appropriate
control panel on the Mac, selected the interface I wanted to share
from and the interface(s) through which I wanted to share the
connection -- which happened to be the same interface in both
cases -- and it gave me a little warning (that in effect said my
ISP may get annoyed if I start serving DHCP requests on their
network, since it noticed the implications of sharing on the same
interface you talk to your ISP on) and then went ahead and shared
the connection just perfectly with no hassle at all.

Wow. Windows has managed to blow off part of the elbow and the
shoulder as well. Amazing.

Sounds like Apple did it more or less right, at least. I don't
know regarding Linux; I'd have to experiment. (I don't anticipate
major problems but I don't have a need to do DHCP, either.)


It's that kind of stupidity that makes Windows hard to live with
for me. Windows just consistently finds ways to make tasks that
should be easy into tasks that are impossible. Other operating
systems (notably Linux) may make theoretically-easy things more
difficult than they should be. But a good motto is that computing
systems (whether it's operating systems or computer languages)
should "make easy things easy and difficult things possible".
To Windows is a great example of an OS that gratuitously makes
certain things impossible, which is one reason it's soooo annoying
to deal with sometimes.

But it makes certain other things all too easy -- like setting up
a "zombie" box that gets compromised even before one can download
the requisite software patches.


- Logan


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Roger wrote:

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.

There is no package management on Windows, beyond the OS. period and the
very weak and prone to breakage registry.



Try posting with your sig last, not first.

Then read up on something you know nothing about; the Windows registry.

I set it up so I just close the lid, yank the
cables, and toss it in my bag. It only screws up if I have a doc open on the
LAN and disconnect. Naturally, that causes problems.

What problems and why? I shift a Mac between and home, office and lab
several times a day and all that is required after opening the lid is
clicking on the appropriate location of home/office/lab. Rebooting
everything to do with the network would be a signficant annoyance.

I would like to add that I am not having go, I am asking because I may
be getting a Windows portable in the near future. I will refrain from
commenting on my experience with linux on portables given how far we
have wandered from the topic.

Ralph wrote:
snip

From: Ralph
Subject: Linux and audio pro


Do you own www.way.com ?

I thought not.

I set it up so I just close the lid, yank the
cables, and toss it in my bag. It only screws up if I have a doc open on
the
LAN and disconnect. Naturally, that causes problems.

What problems and why?

I've only done this twice, and both by accident. If the original doc is on
the LAN, the app doesn't expect the Lan to suddenly disappear. I suppose the
end result is dependent upon where the app stashes temp working files while
the doc is open. In my case, I lost the work I'd done on the doc since the
last manual save. There are probably some Windows tools to deal with this
sort of thing, but I haven't bothered to look for them. They probably
require a synchronization step, and for that trouble all I really needed to
do was save the file.

Rebooting everything to do with the network would be a signficant
annoyance.

Same here. I do not have to do that, just pay attention to the location of
open files before I go home. I've gotten into the habit of leaving several
big docs open while hibernating, and it's fine as long as they are on the
local HDD.

-John O

wrote:

This ignores major sources of instability - external factors (virii etc.),
hardware (PCI bus mastering anyone?), CPU errata or undefined usages, and
software errata.

The OS can't do very much about bad hardware (although to some extent it
can help compensate for hardware issues... check some of the work on
fault-tolerant operating systems).

But the OS can do a lot about software errata, by keeping small software
problems from turning into total system meltdowns.

If the OS has to catch it, the system isn't stable.

By that definition, no system is stable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
alex bazan wrote:

try having this level of support (contacting directly with the
programmers) with any propiertary application.

Some of us regularly experience this on commercial audio applications
and on hardware/drivers we use with them. The companies that provide
this kind of support have fierce customer loyalty, BTW.

What applications are these? They aren't Pro Tools or Sonic, I can
sadly report.

And you know, I know a lot of folks who would pay serious money to get
serious support from Sonic. If they'd give it.

Honestly, I am sure there are companies that do provide this kind of
support, and I'd like to know who they are because for one thing I'd
like to patronize them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

If the original doc is on the LAN, the app doesn't expect the Lan to suddenly disappear.

Thanks for the reply. This sort of problem was not what I was imagining
and is not likely to occur given the way I work.