20 Feb
2013
20 Feb
'13
8:36 a.m.
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
joet@music:~$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
3784 ? S 0:00 sshd: joet@pts/0
3785 pts/0 Ss 0:00 -bash
3886 pts/0 S 0:03 xfce4-panel
3890 pts/0 S 0:00 dbus-launch --autolaunch
cc2b7c64cc6292515b70bed80000
3891 ? Ss 0:00 //bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5
--print-addres
3893 ? S 0:00 /usr/lib/xfce4/xfconf/xfconfd
3909 pts/0 R+ 0:00 ps x
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, 6 things. The idea is to use two computers. Some of the mini atom MBs
would easily fit two in one case and still use no fans and one PS. They
all have Gb networking, so a small switch between them is all that is
needed. This assumes a single audio card with enough channels for whatever
you are doing, either pci, USB or (with a pci(e) FW card) FW.
One computer is headless and never runs X, though it would have most of
the x libs anyway. All of the audio SW would be installed on this machine.
I only used xfce4-panel because it was already there (it's running
ubuntustudio in real life sitting at the login screen). The panel has been
cleared of all applets except for the main menu and shrunk to fit. I am
not sure if this is enough, some people may need a systray as well. The
panel seems to launch dbus for me too (good). The main thing is that it
gives me a menu for that machine where the apps it launches all inherit
the same dbus info and display. An ncurses based menu could work just as
well. and there are other panels or docks which would also work.
The second computer can run any linux or BSD or anything else so long as
it has an xserver (even windows I think can have an xserver). It does not
matter what video card you use, because you can run a generic kernel that
the driver is made to run on. You don't have to think about interrupts or
anything like that. Pulse run on this machine will not affect jack in any
way. Rather than bother with figuring out a pulse-jack bridge, connect
line out from the head board to the line of the audio board and vise versa
and use zita-a2j and zita-j2a to add them to jack.
My machines are not the best trial. I am using wireless networking (b
version with max 11M, but most often less) but even with 100M there is
some lag, though it doesn't effect the audio at all. Gb net would probably
be good enough though.
affects latency? yup. jack running -p16 -r 48000, guitarix on top. very
few Xruns, with the DE on the same machine I had 1000s/minute. No mouse/kb
irqs, no video irqs, Makes this old P4/2.4G sing. I'll have to try dual
heading the gui box (aspire one netbook).
So far I think this is a better solution than running the audio across the
net.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
20 Feb
20 Feb
8:45 a.m.
2013/2/20 Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net>
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
About minimal/light DE, I would suggest the use of awesome
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Main_Page
regards
-r
1:59 p.m.
on Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 08:45:43AM +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2013/2/20 Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net>
Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not much lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
-w
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
About minimal/light DE, I would suggest the use of awesome
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Main_Page regards
-r
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
2:36 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:59:02 +0100, William Light <wrl(a)illest.net> wrote:
on Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 08:45:43AM +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
Perhaps there are, maybe there aren't, but tiled WMs anyway are useless
for a serious audio production GUI workflow, you even don't need a WM,
simply use X only, if you like to break a sane workflow.
At the moment I build a minimal install, that seriously can be used for a
common audio workflow and for this install I keep Xfce4.
There's a difference between a minimal install that makes sense and a geek
contest, to get something that is lightweight, but useless for serious GUI
audio work.
You at least want something as LXDE or Fluxbox. Frame based WMs might fit
to the very special needs of a minority, but can't be a serious
recommendation.
Regards,
Ralf
2013/2/20 Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net>
Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not much lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things
cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work
well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
About minimal/light DE, I would suggest the use of awesome
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Main_Page
3:13 p.m.
2013/2/20 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
Perhaps there are, maybe there aren't, but tiled
WMs anyway are useless for
a serious audio production GUI workflow, you even don't need a WM, simply
use X only, if you like to break a sane workflow.
that's your questionable opinion with some garbage
first of all tiled WMs (like awesome) can be used in serious audio
production as you can/cannot use tiling
the sane workflow is the one which fits to the user, ie there are no rules
eg. you can have ardour on desk1, ardour mixer on desk2, hydrogen on
3, muse on 4, HW mixer on 5... and switch from one to another with two
fingers <meta> + arrows
even on a desk with several apps you can move from one to another with
<meta> + k/j
no mouse at all
At the moment I build a minimal install, that seriously can be used for a
common audio workflow and for this install I keep Xfce4.
There's a difference between a minimal install that makes sense and a geek
contest, to get something that is lightweight, but useless for serious GUI
audio work.
...what you call "geek contest" is simply a keyboard shortcut
--
L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti,
alla protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)
3:32 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:13:11 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2013/2/20 Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
I don't want to discuss this nonsense, but I also have written, that for a
minority such WMs might be ok, so don't skew my words. You can't seriously
belief, that such WMs will be good for _common_ workflow in _averaged_
audio studios.
It should be possible for an engineer not interested in geek stuff, to
simply use the computer in any studio, were he's guest.
Engineers who are guest in a studio often can handle common software on
most common OS, even if they don't know the software and having an
averaged DE will enable to use Linux software that easy too.
Don't make Linux that freakish. It's ok for some users, but audio studios
need some standards. We also have standards for impedance etc., not really
needed, we can all build our own gear.
Perhaps there are, maybe there aren't, but
tiled WMs anyway are useless
for
a serious audio production GUI workflow, you even don't need a WM,
simply
use X only, if you like to break a sane workflow.
that's your questionable
opinion with some garbage
first of all tiled WMs (like awesome) can be used in serious audio
production as you can/cannot use tiling
the sane workflow is the one which fits to the user
3:36 p.m.
2013/2/20 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:13:11 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We always read you neverending replies so I guess you can survive to
this quite easily :-)
Yes I seriously belive that Awesome is really usable in a studio.
-r
--
L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti,
alla protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)
2013/2/20 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
I don't want to discuss this nonsense, but I also have written, that for a
minority such WMs might be ok, so don't skew my words. You can't seriously
belief, that such WMs will be good for _common_ workflow in _averaged_ audio
studios.
Perhaps there are, maybe there aren't, but tiled WMs anyway are useless
for
a serious audio production GUI workflow, you even don't need a WM, simply
use X only, if you like to break a sane workflow.
that's your questionable opinion with some garbage
first of all tiled WMs (like awesome) can be used in serious audio
production as you can/cannot use tiling
the sane workflow is the one which fits to the user
4:09 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:36:38 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We always read you neverending replies so I guess you
can survive to
this quite easily :-)
Reading isn't an issue, I just wont continuing to discuss it, just throw
in my thoughts, as somebody who worked in this business. We have some
standards for audio and video production and I set up my machines that
way, as the vendors of the audio gear I use and the audio gear I developed
use such standards too, e.g. for impedance. Building gear with a freakish
impedance can be used in a studio too, it's just not smart to use a
freakish impedance.
[satire] Since "awesome" is named regarding to "Barney Stinson", it
would
be sexist to include it to an audio distro or even to a repository.
Remember the wallpaper discussion. [/satire]
5:28 p.m.
Hi List!
On 2/20/13, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:13:11 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
dwm is an excellent piece of software, and despite it's steep learning
curve is VERY usable. Besides having a tiled layout, it also provides
floating views. Yes, you do have to recompile every time you want to
tweak it, but trust me, it's not difficult at all. dwm is also very
customizable, you can define specific applications to always have a
particular state (tiled or floating), particular window where they are
displayed, particular shortcuts that spawn them, and the list goes on.
A menu program is also available for dwm, if you're averse to
keyboard shortcuts. I use dwm for everything, and I can't say enough
about it. It is certainly not a traditional approach, that's for
sure.
And if we're "just throwing in some thoughts", I'm going to throw in
that the following statements are very different, and I personally
DON'T see any skewing of words going on:
1. "tiled WMs anyway are useless for a serious audio production GUI workflow"
2. "You can't seriously belief, that such WMs will be good for
_common_ workflow in _averaged_ audio studios"
serious != common
2013/2/20 Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
I don't want to discuss this nonsense, but I also have written, that for a
minority such WMs might be ok, so don't skew my words. You can't seriously
belief, that such WMs will be good for _common_ workflow in _averaged_
audio studios. Perhaps there are, maybe there aren't, but
tiled WMs anyway are useless
for a serious audio production GUI workflow, you even don't need a WM,
simply use X only, if you like to break a sane workflow.
that's your questionable opinion with some garbage
first of all tiled WMs (like awesome) can be used in serious audio
production as you can/cannot use tiling
the sane workflow is the one which fits to the user 
22 Feb
22 Feb
2:06 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:59:02 +0100, William Light
<wrl(a)illest.net> wrote:
I've been productive on OpenBox with fbpanel, though it wasn't with
audio. It's pretty much indistinguishable from more complex desktops -
it has a start button/menu, task bar, "desktops"/"workspaces", a
clock
and a Network Manager icon.
--
Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb; Computational Journalism Publishers Workbench
http://j.mp/CompJournBench/
I am not an IP address! I am a free man!
on Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 08:45:43AM +0100,
Raffaele Morelli wrote:
Perhaps there are, maybe there aren't, but tiled WMs anyway are useless for
a serious audio production GUI workflow, you even don't need a WM, simply
use X only, if you like to break a sane workflow.
At the moment I build a minimal install, that seriously can be used for a
common audio workflow and for this install I keep Xfce4.
There's a difference between a minimal install that makes sense and a geek
contest, to get something that is lightweight, but useless for serious GUI
audio work.
You at least want something as LXDE or Fluxbox. Frame based WMs might fit to
the very special needs of a minority, but can't be a serious recommendation.
2013/2/20 Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net>
Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not much lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things
cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
About minimal/light DE, I would suggest the use of awesome
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Main_Page
20 Feb
20 Feb
2:56 p.m.
2013/2/20 William Light <wrl(a)illest.net>et>:
Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not much
lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
-w
it seems really good but that's too much for me :-)
BTW I'll have a try
-r
--
L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti,
alla protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)
3:13 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2013/2/20 William Light <wrl(a)illest.net>et>:
"You don’t have to learn Lua/sh/ruby or some weird configuration file
format (like X resource files), beside C, to customize it for your
needs: you only have to learn C (at least in order to edit the header
file)."
So you have to recompile every time you want to tweak settings?
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not
much lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
-w
it seems really good but that's too much for me :-)
BTW I'll have a try 
21 Feb
21 Feb
6:51 a.m.
On 02/20/2013 04:12 AM, Brett McCoy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hahahahaha! Real non-technical-user-friendly way to do things!
Easier to learn a basic text markup. Better still: provide a GUI tool
for tweaking settings and have IT write the configuration file and send
a call to the executable telling it to reload its config file.
But then, why doesn't the opendesktop standard have a good standard tool
for creating/updating .desktop files?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
2013/2/20 William Light <wrl(a)illest.net>et>:
"You don’t have to learn Lua/sh/ruby or some weird configuration file
format (like X resource files), beside C, to customize it for your
needs: you only have to learn C (at least in order to edit the header
file)."
So you have to recompile every time you want to tweak settings? Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not
much lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
-w
it seems really good but that's too much for me :-)
BTW I'll have a try
22 Feb
22 Feb
12:47 a.m.
on Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:12:39AM -0500, Brett McCoy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Raffaele Morelli
<raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
yep! it's kind of a hilarious piece of software, honestly. my suggestion
of it was mostly a joke, and i would certainly be laughing at it along
with everybody else, but unfortunately it fits me like a glove and i
find using it to be an absolute joy. however, if it doesn't fit your
workflow, it doesn't fit your workflow.
i wasn't really expecting a backlash, maybe just a chuckle or two.
dwm has both idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but so too do most
"expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
but i think that much "professional" software fits this bill, especially
software aimed at creative people. photoshop? blender, 3ds max? how
about logic, REAPER, ableton live, or any number of other programs in
our niche?
for the record, i use renoise in dwm (in a floating workspace) and it's
fine. dwm isn't all tiling all the time if you don't want it to be.
-w
2013/2/20 William Light <wrl(a)illest.net>et>:
"You don?t have to learn Lua/sh/ruby or some weird configuration file
format (like X resource files), beside C, to customize it for your
needs: you only have to learn C (at least in order to edit the header
file)."
So you have to recompile every time you want to tweak settings? Or, if it fits your workflow, there's not
much lighter than dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/
-w
it seems really good but that's too much for me :-)
BTW I'll have a try --
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:37 a.m.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:47:09 +0100
William Light <wrl(a)illest.net> wrote:
C as the config language? I think we just reached Nerdvana! If I weren't
so happy with Fluxbox, I'd be tempted to try this out. I just don't have
the time for that sort of a geexpedition now, though.
I like fluxbox because it lets me recreate the old Sun OLVWM environment
I used for years, with a few modifications, and enough recognition of the
rest of the Linux world to get along with any type of application I've tried,
Gnome, KDE, Motif - it'll do the right thing.
So you have to
recompile every time you want to tweak settings?
yep! it's kind of a hilarious piece of software, honestly. i wasn't really expecting a backlash, maybe just a
chuckle or two.
You definitely got one here!
for the record, i use renoise in dwm (in a floating
workspace) and it's
fine. dwm isn't all tiling all the time if you don't want it to be.
I'm coming in late to this, but at one point it looked like "tiling" got
conflated to virtual desktops, at least as I plowed through my email.
Ralf seemed to be against VDs (hey! In another context, so am I!), but I
think he's a purist looking to keep things as lean as possible. I like that,
and think that saving resources is overlooked in these days of gigs of RAM
and multiple cores running in the GHz range.
<csb>
When I was a college freshman back in the stone knives and bearskin days,
I had an assignment to write a program in Pascal on a DEC TOPS-20 to perform
a simple task, and it had to compile to be >= n bytes in size. It wasn't
hard to get it to n-2 bytes, but those last two were tough. The trick was
that we had to use one type of loop rather than the obvious(*) which saved
the two bytes in the compiler.
</csb>
I don't think programmers have worried about that type of optimization in
years, except perhaps embedded system folks, and even there I don't know if
two bytes would matter to a soul.
My favorite optimization story ever is the story of Mel Kaye.
http://catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html
(*) using an until rather than a while, or some such - the details are lost
to time, at least until the Doctor comes round.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
7:09 a.m.
On 22/02/13 08:37, Joe Hartley wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:47:09 +0100
William Light<wrl(a)illest.net> wrote:
C as the config language? I think we just reached Nerdvana! If I weren't
so happy with Fluxbox, I'd be tempted to try this out. I just don't have
the time for that sort of a geexpedition now, though.
maybe xmonad (the remake of dwm in Haskell and, configured in a Haskell file
instead of a C one ... first written to show how to do something full of IO and
side effects in a functional language) is competition in Nerdvana land? it is
said to have some nice enhancements over dwm, and would make a nice pairing with
Euterpea in a music/composition environment!
http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/euterpea-2/
Simon
So you
have to recompile every time you want to tweak settings?
yep! it's kind of a hilarious piece of software, honestly.
2:24 a.m.
On Thu, February 21, 2013 3:47 pm, William Light wrote:
on Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:12:39AM -0500, Brett McCoy
wrote:
> So you have to recompile every time you want to
tweak settings?
I've used software like that before... but it was generally something I
whipped up for my own use. My settings were all that mattered. Looking at
the dwm page, I would say that it fits the same profile, made for the
author, if it happens to work for someone else fine, if someone wants
something close they are free to change it.
dwm has both idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but
so too do most
"expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
I never did get anywhere with those two. Ed and Vi mostly, though I think
I have forgotten most of it. I found joe and used it ever after... it's
still my main CLI text ed.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
2:38 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
I think I frighten people at work because I *still* use emacs for all
of my editing tasks...
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
dwm has both
idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but so too do most
"expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
I never did get anywhere with those two. Ed and Vi mostly, though I think
I have forgotten most of it. I found joe and used it ever after... it's
still my main CLI text ed.
3:20 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:38:12 -0500
Brett McCoy <idragosani(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think I frighten people at work because I *still*
use emacs for all
of my editing tasks...
*looks at the three open emacs windows on his other monitor*
Don't know what you mean.
BTW, there's no truth to the rumor that the HURD kernel has but one call:
exec(emacs);
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
9:32 a.m.
On 02/21/2013 04:20 PM, Joe Hartley wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:38:12 -0500
Brett McCoy <idragosani(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, emacs is the only tool needed to compile all true GNU/Free
Software products, according to Richard Stallman.
I always preferred vi, but we've had enough religious wars on the list. ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
I think I frighten people at work because I
*still* use emacs for all
of my editing tasks...
*looks at the three open emacs windows on his other monitor*
Don't know what you mean.
BTW, there's no truth to the rumor that the HURD kernel has but one call:
exec(emacs);
9:47 a.m.
On 02/21/2013 03:38 PM, Brett McCoy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Len Ovens
<len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
I think I frighten people at work because I *still* use emacs for all
of my editing tasks...
Both vi and emacs are powerful pieces of software. They are *not*
designed to be user friendly to anyone else. (Anymore than Wordstar was
in it's day.)
Being hard to learn doesn't make something an "expert" piece of software
- unless you're talking about a *field* that requires lots of expertise
such as rocket science. Text editing isn't rocket science. A text editor
shouldn't be as hard to learn as rocket science. ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
dwm has
both idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but so too do most
"expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
I never did get anywhere with those two. Ed and Vi mostly, though I think
I have forgotten most of it. I found joe and used it ever after... it's
still my main CLI text ed. 
2:09 p.m.
On 02/22/2013 03:47 AM, david wrote:
What makes something an "expert" piece of software is simply that it's not
aimed at the layman. vi, emacs and dwm were meant for software developers
and system administrators to use. And a musician who's also one of those
things will probably be able to figure out those programs. A musician who
isn't should probably use leafpad or something like that. Anything more
involved and they're not going to be able to figure out how to turn on
syntax highlighting, regular expression search and replace, autocompletion,
etc. anyway.
Text editing isn't rocket science, but when vi and emacs were originally
written, it was computer science. Since then it's just been 30-40 years of
iteration to make them more capable without much thought to whether someone
accustomed to Windows Notepad could use them. I've used both for about 25
years, and have no use for the (to me ill-advised) menu extensions that
don't really help noobs use them while taking up space on my screen that
could be used for one or two more lines of code.
For those poor laymen who have to edit files from the command line, we have
nano now. I still get questions from people who allegedly have degrees in
my field about functions that are prominently displayed in its little menu
at the bottom of the screen. Instead of reading the screen, they've been
trained to look for File/Save.
Software meant for the layman but that's difficult to use, on the other
hand, is just poorly-written software. (Expert software can be bad too,
but usually that doesn't last 30 years.)
Rob
>> dwm
has both idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but so too do most
>> "expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
Being hard to learn doesn't make something an "expert" piece of
software -
unless you're talking about a *field* that requires lots of expertise such
as rocket science. Text editing isn't rocket science. A text editor
shouldn't be as hard to learn as rocket science. ;-)
2:23 p.m.
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 08:09 -0500, Rob wrote:
On 02/22/2013 03:47 AM, david wrote:
What makes something an "expert" piece of software is simply that it's not
aimed at the layman. vi, emacs and dwm were meant for software developers
and system administrators to use. And a musician who's also one of those
things will probably be able to figure out those programs. A musician who
isn't should probably use leafpad or something like that. Anything more
involved and they're not going to be able to figure out how to turn on
syntax highlighting, regular expression search and replace, autocompletion,
etc. anyway.
Text editing isn't rocket science, but when vi and emacs were originally
written, it was computer science. Since then it's just been 30-40 years of
iteration to make them more capable without much thought to whether someone
accustomed to Windows Notepad could use them. I've used both for about 25
years, and have no use for the (to me ill-advised) menu extensions that
don't really help noobs use them while taking up space on my screen that
could be used for one or two more lines of code.
For those poor laymen who have to edit files from the command line, we have
nano now. I still get questions from people who allegedly have degrees in
my field about functions that are prominently displayed in its little menu
at the bottom of the screen. Instead of reading the screen, they've been
trained to look for File/Save.
Software meant for the layman but that's difficult to use, on the other
hand, is just poorly-written software. (Expert software can be bad too,
but usually that doesn't last 30 years.)
Rob
I'm not accustomed to Windows editors, in the past I used all kinds of
complicated editors, such as the first C64 Assembler editors, C editors
for DR DOS etc., but today I expect more comfort. I'm not aware about
syntax highlighting for Leafpad or that it can be used by the command
line. I neither program professional, nor just for interest, but I need
a command line editor to set up *NIX systems and for doing this I expect
an intuitive to use editor, such as mcedit.
>>
dwm has both idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but so too do most
>> "expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
Being hard to learn doesn't make something an "expert" piece of
software -
unless you're talking about a *field* that requires lots of expertise such
as rocket science. Text editing isn't rocket science. A text editor
shouldn't be as hard to learn as rocket science. ;-)
9:48 a.m.
On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 17:24 -0800, Len Ovens wrote:
I use vi(m), if nothing else should be available. Should I make yet
another joke about emacs ;)? When searching for a MUA I once chose
"wanderlust", because I like the name. It's a mail client for emacs. To
like the name of an application isn't enough to use it forever.
I preferred mcedit, but during setting up a new Arch install I used
nano, because regarding to a font and mcedit's default colors the fonts
are more readable.
Even for the GUI I've given up gedit, while I still install it. From
FreeBSD I wanted to edit a Linux, so I started "gksu gedit", but I got
no write access, then I became root and used another editor and I could
edit Linux. I tend to drop applications that can't be started by root,
but only when running "gksu" and co.
For nano I'm missing highlighting, but I already read that it is
possible to get it for nano too.
Half-OT: I don't get the Xfce4 issues others and I get for Ubuntu
Quantal, for my Arch Linux install.
dwm has both
idiosyncrasies and a learning curve, but so too do most
"expert" pieces of software. vim and emacs are the canonical examples,
I never did get anywhere with those two. Ed and Vi mostly, though I think
I have forgotten most of it. I found joe and used it ever after... it's
still my main CLI text ed.
10 a.m.
On 02/21/2013 10:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Half-OT: I don't get the Xfce4 issues others and I
get for Ubuntu
Quantal, for my Arch Linux install.
XFCE4 works here for me. I tried LXDE until an attempt to use a tool for
updating and maintaining OpenDesktop menus malfunctioned and wipted out
the desktop menu ...
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
2:07 p.m.
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 07:50 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
On 02/22/2013 04:00 AM, david wrote:
I already wrote another mail, that didn't came through the list,
however, 12.04 Precise is ok here too, but I installed 12.10 Ubuntu
Studio Quantal and Ubuntu Quantal too, both aren't ok and some of the
bugs I experience + some bugs I don't get, are often reported at the
Xubuntu user mailing list.
XFCE4 works here for me
...
Ditto, on three systems (two Ubuntu 12.04, one Arch).
23 Feb
23 Feb
1:07 p.m.
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 14:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 07:50 -0500, Dave Phillips
wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 04:00 AM, david wrote:
>
> > XFCE4 works here for me
> > ...
>
>
> Ditto, on three systems (two Ubuntu 12.04, one Arch).
On an updated Arch I'm experiencing similar issues as for an updated
Ubunt Quantal now.
Note, that I don't get those issues for my not updated Ubuntu Precise.
Don't you experience similar issues like those:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
Subject: Evolution workaround needed
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:56:38 +0100
Hi :)
I'm not aware what does cause this issue, but I first experienced it
with Ubuntu Quantal. When I want to edit settings for Xfce4 or Evolution
in Quantal I often have to delete ~/.cache, then it does work. This is a
known bug, many people experience on Xubuntu user mailing list.
On Arch I need(ed) to edit some settings, especially the username for a
POP access of an new account. I can't change a typo, the edited username
will be reset to the username with the typo, even if I delete ./cache
first.
I directly edited the configuration files in
/home/rocketmouse/.config/evolution/sources/*(a)archlinux.source
after deleting ~/.cache, but when opening Evolution, those settings are
ignored, they must be archived somewhere else. There's nothing in /tmp
and again, ~/.cache was deleted.
The only good news is, that after deleting the cache and editing the
configuration files with an editor _+ a reboot_, Evolution does use the
new settings.
Since I'm sharing only the mail folder by different Linux installs, I
can't change the settings from another Linux.
FWIW, sharing the mail folder can't cause this issue, since _Evolution_
restored the settings and mail folder from a backup, the original mail
folder is in the Arch home directory and I had no access from another
Linux for this new Arch install. And again, it's a
known bug for Xubuntu Quantal, other people experience too, even for
Xfce menu settings etc..
Any hints are welcome, since rebooting after searching and editing
configuration files is a little bit to much for my taste and until now
Evolution doesn't accept the password for this new account.
I wonder if the displaymanager is the culprit, since before I installed
$ pacman -Qi lightdm
Version : 1.5.0-2
$ pacman -Qi lightdm-gtk-greeter
Version : 1.5.1-2
I didn't notice any .goutputstream-* 0 byte files in ~. Those useless
files are stored during shutdown/restart.
At least I don't get the performance issues on Arch, that I get for
Quantal.
Regards,
Ralf
5:55 p.m.
On Sat, February 23, 2013 4:07 am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 14:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
I personally have less problems with quantal, but my usage is probably not
the same.
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 07:50 -0500, Dave Phillips
wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 04:00 AM, david wrote:
>
> > XFCE4 works here for me
> > ...
>
>
> Ditto, on three systems (two Ubuntu 12.04, one Arch).
On an updated Arch I'm experiencing similar issues as for an updated
Ubunt Quantal now.
Note, that I don't get those issues for my not updated Ubuntu Precise. I'm not aware what does cause this issue, but I
first experienced it
with Ubuntu Quantal. When I want to edit settings for Xfce4 or Evolution
in Quantal I often have to delete ~/.cache, then it does work. This is a
known bug, many people experience on Xubuntu user mailing list.
I have not had problems with xfce4 settings at all, but I seem to remember
you having problems with alacarte. Alacarte is not a great menu editing
tool. Menu editing should be possible far beyond what alacarte does and if
it was my decision, I would not include it. It's restore to system default
does not work either. This is a problem with the alacarte application, not
quantal itself. There are not only files in in ~/.config, but also
~/.local. Should I run out of other projects and feel bored, I might make
an alacarte replacement... If by then we are still using the XDG standard
or in fact (given the direction DEs are going), have menus at all. In the
case of alacarte I would suggest hand editing the files. Yes this means
going through the learning curve needed to do so, but I am not aware of
any alternative at the moment.
On Arch I need(ed) to edit some settings, especially the username for a
POP access of an new account. I can't change a typo, the edited username
will be reset to the username with the typo, even if I delete ./cache
first.
I directly edited the configuration files in
/home/rocketmouse/.config/evolution/sources/*(a)archlinux.source
after deleting ~/.cache, but when opening Evolution, those settings are
ignored, they must be archived somewhere else. There's nothing in /tmp
and again, ~/.cache was deleted.
The only good news is, that after deleting the cache and editing the
configuration files with an editor _+ a reboot_, Evolution does use the
new settings.
From all of this, I am getting that there is a problem
with evolution. I
can't really comment as I don't use it at all, in fact it
doesn't come
with UbuntuStudio. I use a web based mail client because I use more than
one computer and I have found it useful to be able to deal with my folders
on more than one machine or from more than one boot even on the same
machine.
In my case I have control of the server the mail client is on. If it was
not so I would probably go for a local client.
known bug for Xubuntu Quantal, other people experience
too, even for
Xfce menu settings etc..
This wording is confusing as the problems seem to be application specific
rather than distro specific. Naming the distro is helpful as it says what
version the application with problems is. I don't think there is much you
can do about alacarte, though the return to system default may be
considered a bug, but in the case of evolution bug reporting should help.
I would take look at the release notes though, in case a new version of
evolution has made a non-upgradable change in config files or something
like that.
At least I don't get the performance issues on
Arch, that I get for
Quantal.
Performance? Now there is a loaded word. Does performance mean low latency
or high throughput? The two are not both available at the same time... Or
maybe it means something quite different. Personally, I have not had any
"performance" issues.
For a good discussion on performance read some of George Buehler's writing
(it's about boats, but I think it applies to life in general).
http://www.georgebuehler.com/summ.html Look for the performance section.
Anyway I would suggest not using the word performance at all, but rather
describing what it is you feel your system is lacking and how you think it
should work. Not just speed, but speed of what? For example, with my
current quantal setup I can get better low latency performance. However,
if I use that performance, my desktop is slower.... That is the compromise
I make.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
20 Feb
20 Feb
6:06 p.m.
El miércoles, 20 de febrero de 2013, Raffaele Morelli escribió:
2013/2/20 Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net
<javascript:;>>
I also tested some light tiling window managers (dwm, larswm...) to
minimize even more needed resources. The concept is good if you work with
your hands on the (qwerty) keyboard and you want less mouse action, but
there's an important learning curve and it is tricky to move inside them
when you want to be just music-thinking and not tech-wm-thinking.
And you have to configure some of them just by text config files or even
with some programming/scripting language, so it takes a lot of time to
config to your needs.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
About minimal/light DE, I would suggest the use of awesome
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Main_Page
regards
-r
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org <javascript:;>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:06 p.m.
El miércoles, 20 de febrero de 2013, Len Ovens escribió:
With all the talk about minimal DE installs, and
reading about the
problems with different kernels and video cards... and what things cause
xruns. I thought of a solution that may work well.
Here is my minimal DE through the eyes of ps:
joet@music:~$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
3784 ? S 0:00 sshd: joet@pts/0
3785 pts/0 Ss 0:00 -bash
3886 pts/0 S 0:03 xfce4-panel
3890 pts/0 S 0:00 dbus-launch --autolaunch
Nice report, Len.
Since time ago I've been thinking about implementing something similar but
with no PC but just portable solutions:
one of the choices was a combination of Raspberry for audio (RaspMusix, I'm
working in), that would be your headless/audio component; and some phone,
tablet or touchscreen where I can monitor parameters, play a virtual
keyboard and rule the other component, whether it'd be connected (wifi or
direct ethernet cable) to its X server or simply running scripts/commands
via ssh, or sending MIDI / OSC...
A convenient add would be any decent audio interface that is supported on
the audio componente, it would help save resources and would improve audio
quality, and maybe it would have a monitor out for headphones or speakers.
My two cents.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
Nice report. Some time ago I've been thinking something similar but with
no PC but just portable solutions: one of the choices was a combination of
Raspberry for audio (RaspMusix, I'm working in), that would be your head
cc2b7c64cc6292515b70bed80000
3891 ? Ss 0:00 //bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5
--print-addres
3893 ? S 0:00 /usr/lib/xfce4/xfconf/xfconfd
3909 pts/0 R+ 0:00 ps x
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, 6 things. The idea is to use two computers. Some of the mini atom MBs
would easily fit two in one case and still use no fans and one PS. They
all have Gb networking, so a small switch between them is all that is
needed. This assumes a single audio card with enough channels for whatever
you are doing, either pci, USB or (with a pci(e) FW card) FW.
One computer is headless and never runs X, though it would have most of
the x libs anyway. All of the audio SW would be installed on this machine.
I only used xfce4-panel because it was already there (it's running
ubuntustudio in real life sitting at the login screen). The panel has been
cleared of all applets except for the main menu and shrunk to fit. I am
not sure if this is enough, some people may need a systray as well. The
panel seems to launch dbus for me too (good). The main thing is that it
gives me a menu for that machine where the apps it launches all inherit
the same dbus info and display. An ncurses based menu could work just as
well. and there are other panels or docks which would also work.
The second computer can run any linux or BSD or anything else so long as
it has an xserver (even windows I think can have an xserver). It does not
matter what video card you use, because you can run a generic kernel that
the driver is made to run on. You don't have to think about interrupts or
anything like that. Pulse run on this machine will not affect jack in any
way. Rather than bother with figuring out a pulse-jack bridge, connect
line out from the head board to the line of the audio board and vise versa
and use zita-a2j and zita-j2a to add them to jack.
My machines are not the best trial. I am using wireless networking (b
version with max 11M, but most often less) but even with 100M there is
some lag, though it doesn't effect the audio at all. Gb net would probably
be good enough though.
affects latency? yup. jack running -p16 -r 48000, guitarix on top. very
few Xruns, with the DE on the same machine I had 1000s/minute. No mouse/kb
irqs, no video irqs, Makes this old P4/2.4G sing. I'll have to try dual
heading the gui box (aspire one netbook).
So far I think this is a better solution than running the audio across the
net.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org <javascript:;>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4293
days inactive
4296
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
30 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Brett McCoy -
Carlos sanchiavedraz -
Dave Phillips -
david -
Egor Sanin -
Joe Hartley -
Len Ovens -
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky -
Raffaele Morelli -
Ralf Mardorf -
Rob -
Simon Wise -
William Light