Maluvia wrote:
Just noticing that the discussion of 'audio' distros tends to primarily revolve around the binary star system of Planet CCRMA/DeMudi.
I know there are people on this list succesfully using Gentoo with unpatched kernels and getting outstanding performance w/re to latency.
We have found Arch Linux to be an excellent choice for audio use, and feel it has many advantages over the 'big 2' - namely streamlined size and the fact that they stay very cutting edge with their kernel and base packages while offering a good selection of audio apps.
(We are using an unpatched kernel, and even, heretically, doing everything as root - with no issues.)
Demudi, from my experience, is about as "streamlined" as I would want to
see an audio distro... 1.2.1 used to offer a light gnome as default and
included fluxbox for when you *really* wanted to slim things down. A
highly optimized kernel and a select package grouping finish off the
single cd which is more than enough for most linux-oriented audio work
as well as other more generalized "desktop" tasks. CCRMA is similar in
concept but as it is designed to be installed on top of another distro
it is difficult to define it as "streamlined" or not without taking the
underlying foundation into consideration.
Different distros are optimized for different purposes, and it appears that RH/Fedora, Debian and SuSe are focused on the enterprise/server market, where stability is paramount, and performance is measured in terms of server optimized parameters.
CCRMA and DeMudi being tied to RH/Fedora and Debian might prove to be a weakness in the long run - (or their greatest strength, depending on your perspective.)
Distros which are either comparatively streamlined (like Arch), or highly customizable (like Gentoo) have a lot of advantages in that they are small, easy to install and stay much more up-to-date, allowing one to take advantage of the most recent kernel improvements - which lately, have a great deal to do with preemption/latency, scheduling and memory management - all crucial for audio apps.
Perhaps the need for specially patched audio kernels is nearing an end, and a well-configured vanilla kernel can perform well within the limits required by audio producers.
I think that it is the use of large, graphics-intensive, multipurpose distros which has brought about much of the need for kernel-patching, disk-tuning, and requirements for high-powered hardware.
In audio production, functionality and usability is what matters more than appearance (imo).
Sometimes that usability necessitates gui features that increase the complexity of an app, but I think this should always be weighed against the possible performance degradation that may, as a consequence, be introduced.
I'm of the smaller-and-faster-is-better school, since that is consistent with my experience.
While a pretty desktop or pretty app may have aesthetic appeal, I'll take a plain version any day if it is faster and allows me to be more productive.
To my mind, the ideal, dedicated audio distribution would have the absolute bare minimum of base programs required to run the audio apps one needs, and the audio apps should be light on graphical features other than the ones required for functionality.
The graphics server should be very fast and lightweight, using a minimum of resources, and similarly for the desktop/WM.
I would like to see an audio distro that behaves much like an embedded system - i.e. the OS being specifically dedicated to optimally interfacing with the DAW hardware, and the (normally) small number of audio apps being used.
As in everything else, the more choices available the better - everyone having different needs and preferences, and I understand why some desire to create Windows-look-alike DEs to demonstrate that Linux can do it too, and attract current Windows users to try Linux.
I would just like to be an advocate for scaled-down, audio-optimized distros with an emphasis on simplicity and performance achieved through a minimum of small, fast programs and well-configured, up-to-date kernels.
(Am working on this. :) )
I am even wondering if there might be a place for a special, audio-optimized file system - AFS - whose journaling, write behavior, etc. is specifically optimized for audio recording.
We are having very good results with XFS, and it may already adequately serve audio requirements, but I still wonder if there could be an even better FS designed for audio?
-Maluvia
The rest of your post is quite interesting. In regards to "embedded" I
believe this is already used in at least one synth/keyboard/DAW
hardware, but I wonder if a sort of home brewed movement might sprout up
around a very light audio distro applied to dedicated hardware as well?
As for me Debian (first Mepis then Demudi, Ubuntu>studio< and most
recently Kanotix) has been the ticket to paradise as relatively light
(small enough to fit on a single ISO), very easy to install, and most
importantly, very easy to expand upon seems to be one of debs great
strengths. I would never want to run a 'dedicated' audio distro
because, like many, my hardware is used for other things as well as
audio production (posting to this mail list for instance). I find it
convenient to start light and then pick and choose from over 10,000
debian packages to optimize my personal workstation for my specific
uses. With debian, a broadband internet account, and a properly
configured sources.list, this is about as good as it gets.
In regards to performance, on modern day hardware, especially if
selected with audio production in mind, sub 4ms latencies are not only
possible but also not that difficult to achieve, even when enjoying the
luxury of some asthetically pleasing eyecandy, which should not, in
itself, be discounted so easily... I find an attractive interface to be
creatively inviting, more pleasurable and thus more productive (at least
in my case) to work with than a simple terminal or even minimal
graphics. I know that starts crossing the line into pc-as-an-instrument
but that's the way I feel. I rarely sit down and fire up my hardware
with a complete work of music in my mind. I will have a few concepts to
work with, or more likely to explore and experiment with, but for me
much of the creative process happens *while* I am sitting at my
computer, and an attractive interface plays no small part in that.
Best,
Jon
