<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
On 06/04/2009 04:39 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:291cdeab0906040239qd12a6d9y1c0076a9252f0b45@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Anyone is free to create yet another distribution. Nobody should
have the authority to prevent any such initiative, even if it's an
inconvenience (adds more to choose from; adds more confusion?). What
everyone should do, however, is find a balance between convenience and
accessibility, by which I refer to the current norm of having a
specialised platform (operating system + packages) in order to make
Linux audio "accessible".</div>
<div><br>
The problem with the current approach is that maintaining a specialised
distribution means basically just that - maintaining a distribution.
This involves the same manpower required to run a proper desktop
platform, if your intention is to "reach out to the masses". One other
problem is that each of these "mainstream" parent distributions have a
particular release cycle, which the respective initiative must follow.
Often times, since Linux audio is an effort primarily still in
development stages, users see the need to get their software from
upstream project managers. In essence, a Linux audio distro initiative
is a bleeding-edge initiative. Even a stable platform like 64Studio may
not be considered functional by the masses.</div>
<div><br>
The solution to this is to:</div>
<div><br>
(1) have a rolling-release cycle</div>
<div>(2) provide only add-on packages; not a distribution</div>
<div>(3) have a framework to easily build software from upstream and
add to the package manager</div>
<div><br>
For the vast majority, from what I have seen and heard (not experienced
though), Sidux meets these criteria. It is:</div>
<div><br>
(1) Debian-based; convenient</div>
<div>(2) Rolling; accessible</div>
<div>(3) There are tools to create a package from a local build</div>
<div><br>
For others, and from personal experience, there are Gentoo and Arch.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
This is the list of current distros (in no particular order) that I
have picked up in this thread. If I have missed any please let me know.
I will update the lau-guide with this list.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sidux<br>
Gentoo<br>
Arch<br>
64Studio<br>
Transmission<br>
Musix<br>
Debian Multimedia Team<br>
Gentoo ProAudio<br>
ArchAudio<br>
Planet CCRMA<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd</pre>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:291cdeab0906040239qd12a6d9y1c0076a9252f0b45@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> I can speak for both, because I've spent quite a lot of time on
the former, and am settled entirely with the latter for over 2 years.
The main difference between these two is that one is solely a
source-based platform, which I've come to find is more on the
inconvenient side. With a bleeding-edge initiative, one may have to
compile software, but not the entire platform. This is what Arch
solves. To both sides of the spectrum of Linux users (new and
advanced), Arch has its demerits. However, for a specialised platform,
the merits are overwhelming:</div>
<div><br>
(1) Rolling.</div>
<div>(2) No split packages; package foobar means software foobar; you
get what and how upstream intends you to get.</div>
<div>(3) Easy and code-simple package management for both binary and
source, thanks to:</div>
<div> (a) simple buildscripts; it takes one mere minutes to add a
local build as a binary to the package database.</div>
<div> (b) (2) directly means there are no further headaches while
scripting a new package.</div>
<div>(4) Due to the meta nature of the distribution, there's
absolutely 0 need for another distribution if the intention is to make
it accessible for specialised use.</div>
<div><br>
However, both of these are not for the "masses" or mainstream Linux
users.</div>
<div><br>
Conclusion: See the project highlighted in the previous mail? That's
the saviour. An agnostic repository (within the parent distribution
domain) serving a whole load of users - precisely what CCRMA (or the
other similar initiatives) is. It's really simple - you don't need
another distribution or installer disc. You just install your desired
Debian-based distribution and add packages from that repository. Make
that something like Sidux and you're rockin'.</div>
<div><br>
So I'd urge anyone thinking of creating an audio distro to put his/her
efforts into packaging for the Debian Multimedia Team (or help out in
others like CCRMA, Gentoo ProAudio, ArchAudio etc).</div>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org">Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user">http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>