8 Aug
2009
8 Aug
'09
5:32 a.m.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:22 AM, James Cameron<quozl(a)us.netrek.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:44:46PM -0600, Thomas
Vecchione wrote:
Yeah, that was my point. I checked my Debian testing gcc first and
verified that the download is far less than 1 MB.
I believe the latest XCode is over a gig, but my experience wasn't
quite so bad; it was an older ibook, discs long gone, but using an
outdated version that was only 300 some MB, still too much, and
significant given the speed of the comp.
Maybe here's a task for some beneficent soul like me, to compile some
GCC tools on OSX and offer small downloads.
-Chuckk
--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
You misunderstood what he was saying. The GCC
compiler IS included on
the installation disks as part of the XCode program. You can also
download this program off of the internet(The download is over a gig
by the way last I looked). The complaint is that Apple only bundles
gcc with the XCode program and a lot of useless stuff that aren't
necessarily used by people like us. But they are used by most Mac
developers, and Apple I am sure wants to encourage their use and
'their' way of doing things.
Ah, I see, thanks. Yes, an encouragement. I get the point. An open
ecosystem doesn't need to offer the same encouragement. 
8 Aug
8 Aug
7:01 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
I, for one, develop on OSX, but would not touch XCode with a
barge pole. I'm much happier with emacs and the terminal, as in
Linux (and Windows, for that matter).
I see about the size of download, although it never bothered me
because at work that is not a problem. But it would be if I were
at home.
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuckk Hubbard" <badmuthahubbard(a)gmail.com>
To: "James Cameron" <quozl(a)us.netrek.org>
Cc: <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>;
<linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:22 AM, James
Cameron<quozl(a)us.netrek.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:44:46PM -0600, Thomas
Vecchione wrote:
Yeah, that was my point. I checked my Debian testing gcc first and
verified that the download is far less than 1 MB.
I believe the latest XCode is over a gig, but my experience wasn't
quite so bad; it was an older ibook, discs long gone, but using an
outdated version that was only 300 some MB, still too much, and
significant given the speed of the comp.
Maybe here's a task for some beneficent soul like me, to compile some
GCC tools on OSX and offer small downloads.
-Chuckk
--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
You misunderstood what he was saying. The GCC
compiler IS included on
the installation disks as part of the XCode program. You can also
download this program off of the internet(The download is over a gig
by the way last I looked). The complaint is that Apple only bundles
gcc with the XCode program and a lot of useless stuff that aren't
necessarily used by people like us. But they are used by most Mac
developers, and Apple I am sure wants to encourage their use and
'their' way of doing things.
Ah, I see, thanks. Yes, an encouragement. I get the point. An open
ecosystem doesn't need to offer the same encouragement. 
7:10 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 8 Aug 2009, at 10:01, victor wrote:
I, for one, develop on OSX, but would not touch XCode
with a
barge pole. I'm much happier with emacs and the terminal, as in
Linux (and Windows, for that matter).
You're not the only one, though some of us prefer other editors... :)
- Steve
7:30 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio applications don't have
EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20 LADSPA EQs
to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows applications that come
with an EQ by default for every added channel. Do you think each time
you add a new channel, they also add a copy of the same EQ routine to
the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ is shared by all
channels, one after the other, but anyhow with different EQ setting?
8:04 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:30:33AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't have
EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20 LADSPA EQs
to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows applications that come
with an EQ by default for every added channel. Do you think each time
you add a new channel, they also add a copy of the same EQ routine to
the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ is shared by all
channels, one after the other, but anyhow with different EQ setting?
The code will be shared, and for a typical channel strip EQ
it's peanuts anyway. Then there's per-instance data which
again for an normal EQ isn't anything to worry about.
It's the GUI that takes up most of the resources. Most
of the GUI code will be shared with other parts, but the
data won't.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
8:18 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:30:33AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
Okay, this sounds plausible. I only wanted to point out, as I've written
in another mail, while you replied, that not everybody, but some people
have troubles because of resources, only when using Linux. There might
be different reasons for this, but it's a fact that this is a problem
and I guess this is something that could be fixed.
It's not very smart to compare different OSs and applications, I'm sorry
that I tend to do this. It would be better to describe some approaches
and to describe the good and bad experiences just for Linux applications.
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't have
EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20 LADSPA EQs
to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows applications that come
with an EQ by default for every added channel. Do you think each time
you add a new channel, they also add a copy of the same EQ routine to
the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ is shared by all
channels, one after the other, but anyhow with different EQ setting?
The code will be shared, and for a typical channel strip EQ
it's peanuts anyway. Then there's per-instance data which
again for an normal EQ isn't anything to worry about.
It's the GUI that takes up most of the resources. Most
of the GUI code will be shared with other parts, but the
data won't.
Ciao, 
8:22 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/08/2009 08:18 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
It's a fact that people complain about it and it is a problem for them
but it is not a fact that it is a problem with Linux or all Linux
software or the kernel or pretty much any of the most stable and mature
apps in the open source world.
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:30:33AM +0200, Ralf
Mardorf wrote:
Okay, this sounds plausible. I only wanted to point out, as I've written
in another mail, while you replied, that not everybody, but some people
have troubles because of resources, only when using Linux. There might
be different reasons for this, but it's a fact that this is a problem
and I guess this is something that could be fixed.
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't have
EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20 LADSPA EQs
to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows applications that come
with an EQ by default for every added channel. Do you think each time
you add a new channel, they also add a copy of the same EQ routine to
the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ is shared by all
channels, one after the other, but anyhow with different EQ setting?
The code will be shared, and for a typical channel strip EQ
it's peanuts anyway. Then there's per-instance data which
again for an normal EQ isn't anything to worry about.
It's the GUI that takes up most of the resources. Most
of the GUI code will be shared with other parts, but the
data won't.
Ciao,
It's not very smart to compare different OSs and
applications, I'm sorry
that I tend to do this. It would be better to describe some approaches
and to describe the good and bad experiences just for Linux applications.
Yes.
This is the correct way to approach Linux lists.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:43 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Avoiding comparisons is something I still need to learn. It's not so
easy, because I'm confronted with different OSs, in different situations.
It's not
very smart to compare different OSs and applications, I'm sorry
that I tend to do this. It would be better to describe some approaches
and to describe the good and bad experiences just for Linux applications.
Yes.
This is the correct way to approach Linux lists.
8:10 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't
have EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20
LADSPA EQs to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows
applications that come with an EQ by default for every added channel.
Do you think each time you add a new channel, they also add a copy of
the same EQ routine to the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ
is shared by all channels, one after the other, but anyhow with
different EQ setting?
To be honest I don't know if LADSPA might be "intelligent" and does the
same or maybe on other OSs it isn't the way I suspect that it is, but
you very often can read, that Linux needs more resources, more RAM and
CPU speed to do less than is possible on other OSs. And in addition I
guess no user takes care if development utilities for OS X or for Linux
do need 1GB or 1KB, because of two reasons. 1. They don't need compilers
etc.. 2. If they do need them, 1GB hd space isn't a problem for most people.
Nearly everybody subscribed to Linux mailing lists is interested in
Linux and don't like other OSs proprietary software. But some issues
should become better and some of those issues don't belong to the
distribution folks, but to the coders.
It's not badmouth if people report their experiences. It might be
different for many people, thy might have better experiences.
Ralf
8:19 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/08/2009 08:10 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I don't think you read this about Linux per se. You will find this is
the case with some of the more immature software being distributed but
that happens on any platform. A lot of newbies will right of Linux
because they don't know how to make it work properly. There is certainly
a lot of information to understand before many things can be done in the
most efficient way possible. However that is the "problem" with open
source in general. In many ways it's about learning how to fish not
buying the fish.
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't
have EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20
LADSPA EQs to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows
applications that come with an EQ by default for every added channel.
Do you think each time you add a new channel, they also add a copy of
the same EQ routine to the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ
is shared by all channels, one after the other, but anyhow with
different EQ setting?
To be honest I don't know if LADSPA might be "intelligent" and does the
same or maybe on other OSs it isn't the way I suspect that it is, but
you very often can read, that Linux needs more resources, more RAM and
CPU speed to do less than is possible on other OSs. And in addition I
guess no user takes care if development utilities for OS X or for Linux
do need 1GB or 1KB, because of two reasons. 1. They don't need compilers
etc.. 2. If they do need them, 1GB hd space isn't a problem for most people.
Nearly everybody subscribed to Linux mailing lists is interested in
Linux and don't like other OSs proprietary software. But some issues
should become better and some of those issues don't belong to the
distribution folks, but to the coders.
It's not badmouth if people report their experiences. It might be
different for many people, thy might have better experiences.
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:34 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/08/2009 08:10 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I do agree and I don't agree :D. A friend draws comics and now he makes
videos, to enable people to learn how to do this, he does it gratis. He
is amazed about the latency on an OS, not Linux, that needs a software
extension to be capable for real-time. He is not someone who knows any
thing about audio. Whatever OS he'll use, he would run into troubles. 1.
I told him to use Linux and when he would not like to do this, because
of some reasons, I 2. told him to install the needed extension for the
OS he is using and he even won't do this. People who has got an
interested in audio will learn and do more than non-audio people, but
there's a limit for artists, not because of the knowledge, but because
of the time.
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I don't think you read this about Linux per se. You will find this is
the case with some of the more immature software being distributed but
that happens on any platform. A lot of newbies will right of Linux
because they don't know how to make it work properly. There is
certainly a lot of information to understand before many things can be
done in the most efficient way possible. However that is the "problem"
with open source in general. In many ways it's about learning how to
fish not buying the fish. Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't
have EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20
LADSPA EQs to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows
applications that come with an EQ by default for every added channel.
Do you think each time you add a new channel, they also add a copy of
the same EQ routine to the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ
is shared by all channels, one after the other, but anyhow with
different EQ setting?
To be honest I don't know if LADSPA might be "intelligent" and does the
same or maybe on other OSs it isn't the way I suspect that it is, but
you very often can read, that Linux needs more resources, more RAM and
CPU speed to do less than is possible on other OSs. 
10:31 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:10:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
you very often can read, that Linux needs more
resources, more RAM and
CPU speed to do less than is possible on other OSs.
You can?
I don't think comparing linux/floss with windows/mac/*proprietary is bad -
if there's something specific that requires much more resources compared to
the competition, it's useful to find out why and fix it.
It's hard to do a useful apples-to-apples comparison though: broad statements
like 'linux performs better than windows' or vice-versa are mostly worthless,
as they don't lead towards any specific thing to improve.
Nearly everybody subscribed to Linux mailing lists is
interested in
Linux and don't like other OSs proprietary software.
I'm not so sure - many people use Linux and other OSs/proprietary software
side-by-side, or use Linux simply because they like Linux, not so much because
they dislike the competition.
But some issues should become better and some of those
issues don't belong
to the distribution folks, but to the coders.
Obviously.
Arnout
8:23 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Steve Harris<steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote:
On 8 Aug 2009, at 10:01, victor wrote:
There are other editors??
Chris
I, for one, develop on OSX, but would not touch
XCode with a
barge pole. I'm much happier with emacs and the terminal, as in
Linux (and Windows, for that matter).
You're not the only one, though some of us prefer other editors... :)
5384
days inactive
5384
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Arnout Engelen -
Chris Cannam -
Chuckk Hubbard -
Fons Adriaensen -
Patrick Shirkey -
Ralf Mardorf -
Steve Harris -
victor