10 Nov
2009
10 Nov
'09
7:24 a.m.
hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote:
This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs.
Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number
of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around.
It sure is. There are some great utilities (like NetBootIN) and manual
ways to turn a Live CD/DVD ISO into a bootable flash drive - but they
ALL proceed to look only at the CDROM drive when you try to install
them. I'm sure someone that knows what they're doing could figure out
how to generalize the process - after all, when a Live CD/DVD boots and
you select install, it already knows what drive it started from, so why
can't it just look there?????
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Hmm, then I guess the distros I've tried (many) must "have it right" to
use jack 0.109.2 - cuz that seems to be what they're using. The only one
I've tried here that is using 0.116.x is the Musix 2 beta.
hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote:
There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they
messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and
this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough.
I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much
all distros get it right. On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Weird, but other programs (general use
ones) seem to be much closer
to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in
Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK
go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be
deliberately sabotaging a competitor.) cal wrote:
> david wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>
>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
> Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence
> had a fairly elegant solution.
>
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
It isn't,
it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
> That thread also featured a strong comment:
> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.
This was almost a year ago. (and it feels
like three years)
This makes me ask the question, "What are
the JACK developers NOT
doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
somehow ...
It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
ones. At least that's my impression. There's was an interesting post:
http://ardour.org/node/2543
Yup. Sigh. When something doesn't work, it's always someone else's
fault. If you're the app developer, it's the distro packagers' fault. If
you're a distro packager, it's the app's fault. And everything is too
complicated for anyone to really figure out what's causing the problem,
anyway ...
Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where
jack is an
essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before
bothering with that.
Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on
my music
box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and
while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux
audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist
on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
installs anymore except Debian's stock distro.