[LAU] getting better performance on arch/kernel 3.3.4

Atte André Jensen atte at email.dk
Fri May 11 06:36:25 UTC 2012

On 2012-05-11 06:20, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> OT: I dropped Arch for music. I still like Arch, but IMO the rolling
> release model makes an audio workstation unstable/unusable. I can't
> remember when I run pacman the last time to upgrade my install. I go
> with Debian and Ubuntu. IMO Ubuntu is the better choice for a DAW. YMMV.

Been there, done that.

I ran debian for years, but god tired of the ancient software available 
in stable. I could run testing or unstable, but that introduces the same 
problems you mention. In my experience the minor breaks that can happen 
in an arch upgrade are 1) small and 2) easy to fix, especially thinks to 
the high quality of the arch documentation/community. You could argue 
(and are probably hinting at) that I was bit by exactly that: the 
rolling upgrade.

I switched to ubuntu for the 1/2 year release cycle, and was happy with 
it for a few years. The best thing ubuntu has going for it IMO is the 
mainstream-ness, meaning that more people use it and (esp if you stick 
to the default software) bugs are less rare. However the bloat, the poor 
realtime kernel support, the rumor that ubuntu was considering switching 
to a rolling release model and the general direction ubuntu is heading 
in made me switch to arch.

I realize that you were going OT and trying to be helpful. However I'm 
sure that if I follow your advise and install ubuntu, the next time I 
get a problem some other guy will tell me that he prefers arch, debian, 
gentoo, suse (or windows) and that my problem would go away if I switch. 
In the long run dist hopping is not really fruitful for neither the user 
or the community, and I would (as I did in the past) think hard before 
switching distro, and I would only consider it the last resort.

But hey, thanks for sharing the thought :-)


http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list