Well, I decided to change over from Suse to Demudi, and on the desktop it went super well, and now I've got muse working with jack and iiwusynth and also with my hardware sblive as well. On the laptop getting the orinoco wirless card will take some work, Suse is easier to install, but the ability to get the latest version of jack and muse and even csound with just apt-get commands is super cool. On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, LinuxMedia wrote: > >>>> I don't know... maybe I'm always thinking in terms of being able to set > >>>> up "audio studios" for other People. > > >> I hit another delay because the new version of MuSE requires so many > >> upgrades to my system > > > It does? I didn't know the requirements had changed so much? > > Or are you talking about the other MuSE ? > > If you are talking about (and I believe you are) lmuse.sf.net then it > > should be spelled MusE. Tragically there is another project in the linux > > audio arena (related to streaming I think) that is named MuSE. > > Yes... I'm talking about MusE (midi and audio recording). > > Keep in mind that I'm upgrading from MusE 0.5.3 to the newest. And when > I looked at the upgrades at the MusE site, I didn't even see MusE 0.5.3 > down the page. The exact packages that I need to upgrade MusE (that led > to upgrading from SuSE 8.1 to SuSE 9.0) are: > > qt 3.1.0 > libsndfile > glibc > > I know that doesn't seem so bad, but I just have the feeling that if I > try to upgrade qt3, somehow it will interfere with some config file that > SuSE uses and will change with the next install. This isn't the case > with most programs, but qt3 seems to be different. It's intertwined with > SuSE config files somehow. And of course there's links pointing to other > qt dirs. I do upgrades a lot. It just seems that qt3 seems to be more > intertwined with SuSE config files and I don't want to reinvent the > wheel to install MusE. > > >> I just ordered SuSE 9.0 instead of trying to find all these files. > > > This is probably a good upgrade anyway. I find that refreshing your > > system once in a while helps keep track of things, not to mention new > > features of distribution. > > I agree. Besides... > <OT> > I want to try out the MainActor 5 (video editing) that is offered in > SuSE 9.0. > </OT> > > >> Anyways, If I find that the new version of MuSE > >> will *record* audio then I've eliminated *yet* another "middle man". > > > I welcome you to the lmuse user-mailinglist for further discussions (if > > you are not there already). > > Thanks... I'm already on the list though. > > > Recording in MusE has been working for > > months if not years. I use it all the time. > > Sheesh... maybe MusE 0.5.3 is older than I thought. Version 0.5.3 > definatly doesn't record. I did read whatever was offered with the > install. I'm pretty sure it even said something about recording not > being implemted yet. But maybe I missed something. > > >> Obvious, I believe in keeping it simple. I've managed to get it down > >> to just a couple of easy to use (and effective) programs... > > >> Well, so far, I have it down to ecasound, MuSE, Timidity and Smurf > >> (sound font edior)... > > > Just for the record, muse is due for a release soon, the last in the 0.6 > > series, after that 0.7 will follow (when it's ready), 0.7 will require > > Jack so you will have to get used to installing Jack I guess ;). > > I'll probly be one of those guys that has MusE 0.6 installed for ten > years and be saying "I remember when we slapped computers together with > sticks and mud. We didn't have fancy sound servers like Jack and Arts. > We were a simple people..." (hehe) > > Jack is a great thing and I'm greatful for the times when I'm forced to > do something that will benifit other things. It looks like Jack is the > future. > > Now let Me go find My Amiga computer so I can record an 8 bit 19000Hz > file (like the good old days). > > Rocco > >
