On Monday 04 September 2006 20:05, carmen was like: (Ianas originally said:) > > I find it deceiving that > > in 2006 there are still some basic problems with the major flagship > > distros. > > whoever said SuSE and FEdora were flagship? flagship distros are debian, > gentoo, and ubuntu, with arch and mandriva rounding out the top 5. or > REdHat/Novell in the corporate world. Fedora is just redhat's lame attempt > to offload work on RedHat to others by emulating the debian model > unsuccessfuly. In your opinion. The term 'flagship distro' isn't really common parlance, so it doesn't really make sense arguing the point. There are plenty of people on this list happily using SuSE and Fedora+PlanetCCRMA to make music. Your reasoning sucks. > nobody said you had to try Studio64, Musix, Agnula, Demudi, StudioToGo, > PCLinuxOS, UbuntuStudio, or wahtever 'derived from another distro and > improved but still proably not fully working \'music out-of-the-box\' > support'. You are not comparing like with like here at all. DeMuDi and UbuntuStudio are simply methods of installing and configuring Debian and Ubuntu respectively for multimedia use - Musix and Studio to Go! are live CDs AFAIA. 64studio is a Debian derived distro specifically aimed at 64bit architecture, but it has not been declared stable yet, so it deserves to be given a bit more slack. Ubuntu is also a Debian derived distro. Agnula, incidentally, is not a distro at all, it's a European free software consortium, which currently maintains DeMuDi. Off-the-wall misinformation doesn't help anyone come to an informed decision. None of the major distros provide a low-latency kernel or realtime security model that works out of the box, hence the development of DeMuDi, PlanetCCRMA, UbuntuStudio, Gentoo's pro-audio overlay and the proliferation of various derived distributions and live CDs. These approaches are frequently recommended by people on this list, because we tried them and they worked for us. None of this software comes with any guarantees and the developers are often not working to any kind of mutually agreed timeline, which means that distro maintainers frequently have to juggle applications in varying states of compatibility. For this reason, most stable software collections use older versions of applications, which don't have all the latest features and may still contain bugs which are considered non-critical. Linux is essentially a DIY approach to computing, what you don't pay for in money, you pay for in time, effort and reading. I think it's a fair deal. The other payback is that we on this list learn to become efficient beta-testers and submit useful bug reports rather than making unqualified complaints. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for.
