1 Dec
2009
1 Dec
'09
12:56 p.m.
hi list,
for my birthday present to myself (shameless birthday plug), I've
decided to install and play with arch. anyone have any good resources
for making arch suitable for audio work? I've seen their wiki page on
the subject, I'm just curious if there is more out there.
thanks!
Josh
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
1 Dec
1 Dec
1:05 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Josh Lawrence wrote:
for my birthday present to myself (shameless birthday
plug), I've
decided to install and play with arch. anyone have any good resources
for making arch suitable for audio work? I've seen their wiki page on
the subject, I'm just curious if there is more out there.
Happy birthday and nice gift :D
Arch is really neutral in how it will be used, so there's nothing
official for audio. But there's a faithful community that may help you
(I unfortunately not part of that yet...)
Some links may help you:
Pro Audio article on the wiki (maybe is the one you mention, sorry if
that's the case)
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pro_Audio
Arch Audio (independent group of users)
http://archaudio.org/
Realtime for users (very useful)
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Realtime_for_Users#PAM-enabled_Login
And there's the forums and the irc channel. The community is very
helpful if you know how to ask.
HTH
--
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
-------------------------------------------
1:10 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Josh Lawrence <hardbop200(a)gmail.com> wrote:
hi list,
for my birthday present to myself (shameless birthday plug), I've
decided to install and play with arch. anyone have any good resources
for making arch suitable for audio work? I've seen their wiki page on
the subject, I'm just curious if there is more out there.
I didn't find/need more, the Pro_Audio wiki page, together with the
rest of the ArchWiki, was pretty much sufficient.
Generally, I found the ArchWiki to ba an outstanding good resource of
information.
happy birthday, arch is a good choice
d
1:44 p.m.
2009/12/2 Josh Lawrence <hardbop200(a)gmail.com>
hi list,
for my birthday present to myself (shameless birthday plug), I've
decided to install and play with arch. anyone have any good resources
for making arch suitable for audio work? I've seen their wiki page on
the subject, I'm just curious if there is more out there.
lol..is that even a valid birthday gift to one's self (or to anyone for that
matter)? =p
Anyway, as you may or may not know, the ArchAudio server is in migration.
The process is a little less trivial than expected, so it'll take a while.
There are no mirrors or secondary/backup hosts, so you'll have to rely on
AUR or another binary repo. I mean, as long as the AUR is there, you've got
everything. Just not in binary. Not to mention that two of the most
important software already have official packages; jack and ardour.
And yeah, happy (belated) birthday ;)
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
1:52 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com> wrote:
lol..is that even a valid birthday gift to one's
self (or to anyone for that
matter)? =p
oh at this point I'll take what I can get :)
Anyway, as you may or may not know, the ArchAudio
server is in migration.
The process is a little less trivial than expected, so it'll take a while.
There are no mirrors or secondary/backup hosts, so you'll have to rely on
AUR or another binary repo. I mean, as long as the AUR is there, you've got
everything. Just not in binary. Not to mention that two of the most
important software already have official packages; jack and ardour.
is there any point in messing with trying to get a realtime kernel
working, or just use the default?
And yeah, happy (belated) birthday ;)
thank you. I feel ashamed for trolling for birthday wishes, but oh well. :)
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
2:11 p.m.
2009/12/2 Josh Lawrence <hardbop200(a)gmail.com>
is there any point in messing with trying to get a
realtime kernel
working, or just use the default?
Just use the stock kernel and do your stuff. Once you have an optimal Jack
configuration, and you know how your workflow is, try a realtime kernel and
see if it helps. Any significant difference will be immediately noticeable.
If it's not significant enough, you won't notice anything, and therefore can
skip it altogether, i.e no point.
For some workloads and hardware, the RT kernel makes all the difference.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
2 Dec
2 Dec
10:58 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just use the stock kernel and do your stuff. Once you
have an optimal Jack
configuration, and you know how your workflow is, try a realtime kernel and
see if it helps. Any significant difference will be immediately noticeable.
If it's not significant enough, you won't notice anything, and therefore can
skip it altogether, i.e no point.
OK, well I've tried the stock kernel last night, and I have xruns
galore. should I now go build the kernel from aur?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15224
...appears to be the only one that isn't out-of-date and is generating
some usage.
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
11:24 a.m.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15224
...appears to be the only one that isn't out-of-date and is generating
some usage.
or waiting till Archaudio is back, they have some good kernels ready.
Cheers,
Malte
--
----
media art + development
http://www.block4.com
follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/herrsteiner
or face the book:
http://www.facebook.com/herrsteiner
1:08 p.m.
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:58 -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Ray Rashif
<schivmeister(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I use kernel26-ice myself (with the BFS patchset) as well as maintaining
kernel26-rt-ice (rt and ice patchsets merged). I don't recommend the
latter, as there's serious crashing issues which I have as yet been
unable to track down. The former is just about as stable as you please.
The stock kernel config provided there (if you're 64-bit its mine) is
almost identical to the one in stock Arch kernel, so you should not get
any lack of functionality.
On the other hand, kernel26rt is maintained by schivmeister, I believe,
and he strives to keep it as up-to-date and stable as possible. It just
looks less used because -ice is much more popular than -rt (more people
have laptops than make music in Arch), but I've used it before I got my
-ice fetish, and it worked.
Just use the stock kernel and do your stuff. Once
you have an optimal Jack
configuration, and you know how your workflow is, try a realtime kernel and
see if it helps. Any significant difference will be immediately noticeable.
If it's not significant enough, you won't notice anything, and therefore can
skip it altogether, i.e no point.
OK, well I've tried the stock kernel last night, and I have xruns
galore. should I now go build the kernel from aur?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15224
...appears to be the only one that isn't out-of-date and is generating
some usage.
2:28 p.m.
2009/12/2 Josh Lawrence <hardbop200(a)gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Ray Rashif
<schivmeister(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hmm, do you happen to be on intel gfx? If so, we're all a victim of:
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23739
And yes, I forgot to mention BFS. Actually I fell in love with it, but have
noticed some bootup problems with my HSDPA modem so I'm back on stock.
ArchAudio has a kernel26daw for BFS, and also an ice kernel adaptation is in
the works (buildscripts half-complete but available in the experimental
dir).
kernel26rt being out-of-date is the maintainer's fault, please give him a
punch (line) =p
Anyway, all the best with your new wife..I mean gift!
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Just use the stock kernel and do your stuff. Once
you have an optimal
Jack
configuration, and you know how your workflow is,
try a realtime kernel
and
see if it helps. Any significant difference will
be immediately
noticeable.
If it's not significant enough, you won't
notice anything, and therefore
can
skip it altogether, i.e no point.
OK, well I've tried the stock kernel last night, and I have xruns
galore. should I now go build the kernel from aur?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15224
...appears to be the only one that isn't out-of-date and is generating
some usage.
3:12 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, do you happen to be on intel gfx? If so,
we're all a victim
of: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23739
yes, that's me. I'll read through this.
kernel26rt being out-of-date is the maintainer's
fault, please give him a
punch (line) =p
Anyway, all the best with your new wife..I mean gift!
being of small mind and even smaller body, I'll refrain from the punch! :)
thanks for all of your help so far.
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
1 Dec
1 Dec
2:17 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:52:31AM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
is there any point in messing with trying to get a
realtime kernel
working, or just use the default?
The default (2.6.31-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT here) works very
well on my laptop, even with USB and quite small periods.
Anyway, happy birthday !
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
6:55 p.m.
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:56 -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
hi list,
for my birthday present to myself (shameless birthday plug), I've
decided to install and play with arch. anyone have any good resources
for making arch suitable for audio work? I've seen their wiki page on
the subject, I'm just curious if there is more out there.
thanks!
Josh
I actually use Arch but don't use Arch Audio =). I install the necessary
packages myself, AUR is your best friend. Arch Audio and the guys behind
it are great though.
I use the BFS patchset most of the time now, helps with lowering latency
quite a bit on my system similar to -rt, but with much better stability.
Check out kernel26-ice (turn on BFS) or kernel26-rt-ice (same PKGBUILD
different defaults). Obviously the -ice patchset is important to me =)
may not be to you though.
Other than that, just use the wiki and forums, good places to find info.
8:21 p.m.
Also recent Arch convert here. Even the standard kernel seems to run
better on my laptop in lowlatency conditions as the Ubuntu Studio one I
used before but who didn't expected that. Reason of the switch is to
gain more control over the system and more current software per default
as in the Ubuntu world. Actually even now things are possible with my
built-in Intel graphic card with the latest drivers which I couldnt do
before and didnt expect to work ever, for instance realtime shadows in
OpenGL. This has an impact on my artistic decisions.
With more control more involvement comes and I had to dig around various
settings and wikis to get everything running as before. But I am happy
with it.
Cheers,
Malte
--
----
media art + development
http://www.block4.com
follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/herrsteiner
or face the book:
http://www.facebook.com/herrsteiner
2 Dec
2 Dec
4:49 a.m.
Josh Lawrence wrote:
for my birthday present to myself (shameless birthday
plug),
I installed arch last summer and just switched back to ubuntu.
For my needs it seems ubuntu performs just as well as arch (I'm even
running the standard ubuntu kernel here), and running the more
non-standard selection of software I had going under arch means little
strange things keeps poping up.
Like, not being able to get in contact with renoise after a fast render
to disc.
Like not being able to compile a working miniAudicle.
Like my beloved transcribe! segfaulting.
Like wines jack output suddenly not working anymore.
These problems are not archs fault, more a result of the bleeding edge
nature of an arch box. But for now I decided my life is too short to
stuff like that. I need my tools (renoise, miniAudicle and transcribe!
for instance) to work, I am willing to invest an reasonable amount of
time in getting there, but I was getting nowhere.
Basically in my experience, a rt configured (limits.conf + user in audio
group) ubuntu with all the bells and whistles (gnome, compiz, tons of
deamons) performs just as well in real time as the bare bone arch.
Happy birthday and good luck!
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
6:08 a.m.
2009/12/2 Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com>
For my needs it seems ubuntu performs just as well as
arch
Correct, because if there were any "performance" differences between
distributions in the first place, I swear I'll start using one of the BSDs
full-time =p
and running the more
non-standard selection of software I had going under arch means little
strange things keeps poping up.
Also correct; for some users and their habits, workflow, arsenal of
software, it may or may not be worth the time investment. In this case, for
"control", one might want to take a look at Sabayon (since they also manage
binaries alongside portage).
In short, the benefits have nothing to do with real-world system
performance. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if things ran slower since we
don't add any kind of optimisation that bigger distros might. Our thinkers
and hackers contribute to upstream directly, we don't have our own
"patches"
or "hacks" unless functionality is compromised.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
9:42 a.m.
I think the current Ubuntu, the 9.10, is indeed performing well, I
installed for a friend recently. But Ubuntu had some problems since
8.04, in 8.10 midi was not working well and 9.04 gave graphics problems
with Intel chips.
The only distribution that ever wowed me was 64Studio with incredible
performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to outdated
for me, I needed more current libraries to program with etc.
Cheers,
Malte
--
----
media art + development
http://www.block4.com
follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/herrsteiner
or face the book:
http://www.facebook.com/herrsteiner
4 p.m.
Malte Steiner wrote:
The only distribution that ever wowed me was 64Studio
with incredible
performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to outdated
for me, I needed more current libraries to program with etc.
Have you checked out the 64Studio 3 beta?
Most current music-focussed distro I've met recently is the Musix 2.0 beta.
And isn't Arch Linux the distro used at MacDonald's?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
4:48 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:00:09AM -1000, david wrote:
Malte Steiner wrote:
That would be Golden Arch Linux.
Hasn't been released yet. It will will come with a Happy Meal.
-ken
The only distribution that ever wowed me was
64Studio with incredible
performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to outdated
for me, I needed more current libraries to program with etc.
Have you checked out the 64Studio 3 beta?
Most current music-focussed distro I've met recently is the Musix 2.0 beta.
And isn't Arch Linux the distro used at MacDonald's?
4:52 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
That would be Golden Arch Linux.
Hasn't been released yet. It will will come with a Happy Meal.
...with your choice of either a girl or boy toy.
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
3 Dec
3 Dec
4:58 a.m.
Ken Restivo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:00:09AM -1000, david
wrote:
Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
of Arch Linux.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Malte Steiner wrote:
That would be Golden Arch Linux.
Hasn't been released yet. It will will come with a Happy Meal. The only distribution that ever wowed me was
64Studio with incredible
performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to outdated
for me, I needed more current libraries to program with etc.
Have you checked out
the 64Studio 3 beta?
Most current music-focussed distro I've met recently is the Musix 2.0 beta.
And isn't Arch Linux the distro used at MacDonald's?
6:04 a.m.
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 22:58 -1000, david wrote:
Ken Restivo wrote:
Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's
not
owned/managed by a company =).
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:00:09AM -1000, david
wrote:
Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
of Arch Linux.
Malte Steiner wrote:
That would be Golden Arch Linux.
Hasn't been released yet. It will will come with a Happy Meal. The only distribution that ever wowed me was
64Studio with incredible
performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to outdated
for me, I needed more current libraries to program with etc.
Have you checked out
the 64Studio 3 beta?
Most current music-focussed distro I've met recently is the Musix 2.0 beta.
And isn't Arch Linux the distro used at MacDonald's?
6:53 a.m.
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 22:58 -1000, david wrote:
I think CodeWeavers does that kind of thing for their version of WINE.
OK, so maybe Golden Arch Linux is aimed at senior citizens and
recently-resigned auto company CEOs? ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Ken Restivo wrote:
Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's
not
owned/managed by a company =). On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:00:09AM -1000, david
wrote:
Oh, I was
thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
of Arch Linux.
Malte Steiner wrote:
> The only distribution that ever wowed me was 64Studio with incredible
> performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to outdated
> for me, I needed more current libraries to program with etc.
Have you checked out the 64Studio 3 beta?
Most current music-focussed distro I've met recently is the Musix 2.0 beta.
And isn't Arch Linux the distro used at MacDonald's?
That would be Golden Arch Linux.
Hasn't been released yet. It will will come with a Happy Meal.
6:54 a.m.
2009/12/3 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee(a)gmail.com>
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 22:58 -1000, david wrote:
There used to be a codemac for $1.99 actually.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Ken Restivo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:00:09AM -1000, david wrote:
>> Malte Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> The only distribution that ever wowed me was 64Studio with incredible
>>> performance out of the box. But I left it because it became to
outdated
>>> for me, I needed more current
libraries to program with etc.
>> Have you checked out the 64Studio 3 beta?
>>
>> Most current music-focussed distro I've met recently is the Musix 2.0
beta.
>>
>> And isn't Arch Linux the distro used at MacDonald's?
>>
>
> That would be Golden Arch Linux.
>
> Hasn't been released yet. It will will come with a Happy Meal.
9:10 a.m.
On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company.Right?
all the best,
drew
Oh, I was
thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
of Arch Linux.
Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company =).
10:06 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee
wrote:
Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company.Right?
all the best,
drew
I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any case, considering
the user base either:-
a) doesn't need your help
b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS ISN'T WINDOWS
WHY SHOULD I PAY"
Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few users who fall
into b). Few isn't none, however =)
Oh, I was
thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
of Arch Linux.
Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company =).
3:50 p.m.
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
Well, I've bought Linux software in the past when FOSS software couldn't
do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy Linux software. I even
bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux).
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee
wrote:
Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for
a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company.Right?
all the best,
drew
I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any case, considering
the user base either:-
a) doesn't need your help
b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS ISN'T WINDOWS
WHY SHOULD I PAY"
Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few users who fall
into b). Few isn't none, however =) Oh, I was
thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
of Arch Linux.
Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a
distro that's not
owned/managed by a company =).
6:13 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote:
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Yes, I don't argue that purchasing Linux software is off-limits, but
that when the entirety of the software is already available free,
purchasing support is a much more iffy member for individual desktop
users, as broadly divided into the groups mentioned above.
Really, the market for paid support is (as I see it) mostly a
corporate/governmental thing, and none of those would ever consider Arch
Linux and its rolling release in any form =).
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
Well, I've bought Linux software in the past when FOSS software couldn't
do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy Linux software. I even
bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux).
On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee
wrote:
I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any case, considering
the user base either:-
a) doesn't need your help
b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS ISN'T WINDOWS
WHY SHOULD I PAY"
Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few users who fall
into b). Few isn't none, however =) > Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be
the paid-support version
> of Arch Linux.
Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company =).
Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for
a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company.Right?
all the best,
drew
7:01 p.m.
2009/12/4 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote:
Yes, I don't argue that purchasing Linux software is off-limits, but
that when the entirety of the software is already available free,
purchasing support is a much more iffy member for individual desktop
users, as broadly divided into the groups mentioned above.
Really, the market for paid support is (as I see it) mostly a
corporate/governmental thing, and none of those would ever consider Arch
Linux and its rolling release in any form =).
Wait..wtf are we talking about now? I remember it was something about
McDonald's, the M and the A, the Ronald and the Teepee :O
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>>>> Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support
version
>>>> of Arch Linux.
>>> Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro
that's
not
>>> owned/managed by a company =).
>> Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a distro that's
not
>> owned/managed by a company.Right?
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> drew
> I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any case,
considering
the user
base either:-
a) doesn't need your help
b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS ISN'T WINDOWS
WHY SHOULD I PAY"
Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few users who fall
into b). Few isn't none, however =)
Well, I've bought Linux software in the past when FOSS software couldn't
do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy Linux software. I even
bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux).
7:07 p.m.
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:00 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
2009/12/4 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote:
software
couldn't
As with all (most?) ML discussions, its gone off on its own tangent =)
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>>>> Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the
paid-support version
>>>> of Arch Linux.
>>> Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a
distro that's not
>>> owned/managed by a company =).
>> Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a
distro
that's not
>> owned/managed by a company.Right?
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> drew
> I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any
case,
considering
> the user base either:-
> a) doesn't need your help
> b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS
ISN'T WINDOWS
> WHY SHOULD I PAY"
>
> Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few
users who
fall
into b).
Few isn't none, however =)
Well, I've bought Linux software in the past when FOSS do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy
Linux
software. I even
bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux).
Yes, I don't argue that purchasing Linux software is
off-limits, but
that when the entirety of the software is already available
free,
purchasing support is a much more iffy member for individual
desktop
users, as broadly divided into the groups mentioned above.
Really, the market for paid support is (as I see it) mostly a
corporate/governmental thing, and none of those would ever
consider Arch
Linux and its rolling release in any form =).
Wait..wtf are we talking about now? I remember it was something about
McDonald's, the M and the A, the Ronald and the Teepee :O
4 Dec
4 Dec
1:16 a.m.
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:00 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
But that's what mailing lists are for: to increase the entropy in
communications. ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
2009/12/4 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote:
software
couldn't
As with all (most?) ML discussions, its gone off on its own tangent =) Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>>>> Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the
paid-support version
>>>> of Arch Linux.
>>> Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a
distro that's not
>>> owned/managed by a company =).
>> Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a
distro
that's not
>> owned/managed by a company.Right?
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> drew
> I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any
case,
considering
> the user base either:-
> a) doesn't need your help
> b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS
ISN'T WINDOWS
> WHY SHOULD I PAY"
>
> Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few
users who
fall
into b).
Few isn't none, however =)
Well, I've bought Linux software in the past when FOSS do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy
Linux
software. I even
bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux).
Yes, I don't argue that purchasing Linux software is
off-limits, but
that when the entirety of the software is already available
free,
purchasing support is a much more iffy member for individual
desktop
users, as broadly divided into the groups mentioned above.
Really, the market for paid support is (as I see it) mostly a
corporate/governmental thing, and none of those would ever
consider Arch
Linux and its rolling release in any form =).
Wait..wtf are we talking about now? I remember it was something about
McDonald's, the M and the A, the Ronald and the Teepee :O
1:21 a.m.
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote:
Those kinds of people probably don't see beyond the bobbing Red Hat ... ;-)
A couple of such places I've worked in here used only Red Hat, didn't
know anything about any other distros and wouldn't even consider them if
they did.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Yes, I don't argue that purchasing Linux software is off-limits, but
that when the entirety of the software is already available free,
purchasing support is a much more iffy member for individual desktop
users, as broadly divided into the groups mentioned above.
Really, the market for paid support is (as I see it) mostly a
corporate/governmental thing, and none of those would ever consider Arch
Linux and its rolling release in any form =). On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
Well, I've bought Linux software in
the past when FOSS software couldn't
do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy Linux software. I even
bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux).
On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee
wrote:
>> Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support version
>> of Arch Linux.
> Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's not
> owned/managed by a company =).
Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a distro that's not
owned/managed by a company.Right?
all the best,
drew
I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any case, considering
the user base either:-
a) doesn't need your help
b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS ISN'T WINDOWS
WHY SHOULD I PAY"
Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few users who fall
into b). Few isn't none, however =)
5277
days inactive
5280
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
31 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Atte André Jensen -
david -
David Adler -
Denis A. Altoé Falqueto -
drew Roberts -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Josh Lawrence -
Ken Restivo -
Malte Steiner -
Ng Oon-Ee -
Ray Rashif