i did not intend to imply that those were the complete settings and precise values to be used - those were just examples of some things that every a/v distro i have ever used does - today arch makes no optimizations of any kind; so it seems to me that it probably should, if arch-proaudio is to be considered as a viable alternative to the tailored a/v production distros - or else why bother? - i assumed that was the goal of this group - so far, all of 'arch-proaudio' is nothing more than a meta-package of suggested programs, yes? - if that is the limit of the effort, i say that is hardly worth doing the argument against and optimizations package seems to be mainly, that the high-powered machines that arch targets do not need to be optimized; or that the user will know how to tune their system without assistance or advice - if so, then surely they know how to install jack and ardour without a meta-package; so what exactly is this all about? - what is unreasonable IMHO, is the assumption that all arch users know their system inside and out; and that all arch users have computers so powerful that no optimizations are necessary perhaps some of those recommendations could be considered as out-dated; but if so, then isnt it better to experiment and update the recommendations and the system scanner script (and the linuxaudio wiki, and the arch wiki) rather than dismiss, out of hand, that some recommendations should exist? if people are so convinced that todays computers are so much different than the ones originally targeted by those optimization packages, and so those generic optimization are sub-optimal or inapplicable today; then that itself proves that this area of knowledge has been neglected for too long and is past due for some attention, because i have never seen any such conflicting "modern" advice anywhere until reading this today i am not at all suggesting to blindly "follow" other distros - indeed those optimizations packages have been around for some years and their particular optimizations may be most useful for, what are today older machines; but that does not make those settings unreasonable for those machines, nor harmful for new machines - i am more suggesting taking the "lead" here by putting some effort into determining what are the best recommendations for the fat machines that archlinux targets; and to offer that as an option in addition to the "classic" settings that older machines will benefit from - maybe it would be found that there are no generic settings for todays new computers, and all tweaks must be done by a skilled hand - that would still be a good reason for some updated documentation or tutorial and an updated system scanner script to assist those lacking a full neck-beard as for the older machines, i find it to be quite unfortunate that arch has kicked users of those older machines to the curb - those machines still exist in large numbers and are quite adequate for most audio tasks; and parabola (and archlinux32) continues to support them indefinitely - not to mention the ARM and other inexpensive hobby platforms; which are also adequate for most audio tasks and are increasing in number - in other words, i am going to maintain this package anyways - i am attempting here to make it a group effort to determine what exactly are some recommended defaults for an intel/AMD audio box that was constructed in 2018, or a beagle-board, or whatever comes next
Attachment:
pgpwSDSLDK6b6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
