20 Dec
2015
20 Dec
'15
11:03 p.m.
Hi all,
At the same time I am posting here, I am posting on the talk list of a
LUG here in the greater Toronto Area.
Two situations that members have asked about, referenced are bringing
up a couple of questions for me.
of the popular Linux distributions specifically developed for the
professional audio community, which is more likely to allow for command
line access?
I understand these tend to have programs that more general distributions
do not include, but I already now I want access to some things shared
here, like Peter's and Joel's programs.
So can anyone speak to the choices?
My second question is tied to latency. I believe this issue came up when
I first asked about outfitting a computer for Linux audio work.
One person here tells me that there here are low latency kernel tools that
address the problem. the question is going to be if those tools work with
older distributions, squeeze for example, because more up to date Kernels
do not always support hardware synthesizers. I would not have made my audio
desires dependent on adaptive technology, buts someone flat out posted a
question regarding this for me on list, not privately....as if they are
thinking all individuals with even slightly the same label are the same,
must have inter changable needs, and asking one means such issues impact
all.
so, I have a choice. build Linux audio setup with zero chance to use the
box directly, seems most likely right now, and does not bother me very
much since the screen readers are rather dreadful, or build a setup with a
slight door open on that use the machine directly front. I already know
ssh telnet is going to be my
only option right now for blending speech with using the Linux box in any
reasonable to my standards way.
I did want to leave a chance for non-software speech however.
Thoughts on my first question?
Kare
21 Dec
21 Dec
12:42 a.m.
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Karen Lewellen wrote:
At the same time I am posting here, I am posting on
the talk list of a LUG
here in the greater Toronto Area.
Two situations that members have asked about, referenced are bringing up a
couple of questions for me.
of the popular Linux distributions specifically developed for the
professional audio community, which is more likely to allow for command
line access?
From the login window control alt F1 to F6 will bring
up a terminal
screen. All will also have the Xterm or something like it often with
a
keyboard shortcut to make it open. Rather than using mutiple VTs, I would
suggest using dbus_launch to start a text based session manager such as
screen and use that to switch from one terminal to another. That way
jackdbus enabled commands can connect from one terminal to the next. I use
screen for my login to my server where I can switch between this mail
client (alpine) and irssi for IRC as well as a terminal for server
maintenance (from within my LAN).
My second question is tied to latency. I believe this
issue came up when I
first asked about outfitting a computer for Linux audio work.
One person here tells me that there here are low latency kernel tools that
address the problem. the question is going to be if those tools work with
older distributions, squeeze for example, because more up to date Kernels do
not always support hardware synthesizers.
Any kernel 2.6 and up can be made RT, from the early 3.* kernels there
have been "lowlatency" versions that can work very well with no patching.
so, I have a choice. build Linux audio setup with
zero chance to use the box
directly, seems most likely right now, and does not bother me very much since
the screen readers are rather dreadful, or build a setup with a slight door
open on that use the machine directly front. I already know ssh telnet is
It is fully possible to start a session and using CTL/ALT/F1 get a
terminal and either just log in or ssh user@localhost from the same
machine. So far nobody has dropped VTs that I know of.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
1:29 a.m.
Are you using avlinux, or the other professional audio Linux distribution?
This is not about commands, but about which of these professional
packages
will produce a command line structure with greatest ease.
Once installed that is. I have no Linux box or no functional one at all as
of yet.
Kare
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Len Ovens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Karen Lewellen wrote:
At the same time I am posting here, I am
posting on the talk list of a
LUG here in the greater Toronto Area.
Two situations that members have asked about, referenced are bringing
up a couple of questions for me.
of the popular Linux distributions specifically developed for the
professional audio community, which is more likely to allow for command
line access?
From the login window control alt F1 to F6 will bring up a terminal screen.
All will also have the Xterm or something like it often with a keyboard
shortcut to make it open. Rather than using mutiple VTs, I would suggest
using dbus_launch to start a text based session manager such as screen and
use that to switch from one terminal to another. That way jackdbus enabled
commands can connect from one terminal to the next. I use screen for my login
to my server where I can switch between this mail client (alpine) and irssi
for IRC as well as a terminal for server maintenance (from within my LAN).
My second question is tied to latency. I
believe this issue came up when
I first asked about outfitting a computer for Linux audio work.
One person here tells me that there here are low latency kernel tools that
address the problem. the question is going to be if those tools work with
older distributions, squeeze for example, because more up to date Kernels
do not always support hardware synthesizers.
Any kernel 2.6 and up can be made RT, from the early 3.* kernels there have
been "lowlatency" versions that can work very well with no patching.
so, I have a choice. build Linux audio setup
with zero chance to use the
box directly, seems most likely right now, and does not bother me very
much since the screen readers are rather dreadful, or build a setup with a
slight door open on that use the machine directly front. I already know
ssh telnet is
It is fully possible to start a session and using CTL/ALT/F1 get a terminal
and either just log in or ssh user@localhost from the same machine. So far
nobody has dropped VTs that I know of.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:56 a.m.
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Are you using avlinux, or the other professional audio
Linux distribution?
This is not about commands, but about which of these professional packages
will produce a command line structure with greatest ease.
Once installed that is. I have no Linux box or no functional one at all as of
yet.
I use UbuntuStudio which while built for audio use is sometimes not
considered Pro enough by some people. However, Studio uses the same kernel
as kxstudio which is also Ubuntu based. Kxstudio uses KDE and I have also
installed Kubuntu here which also has VTs. Ubuntu is based strongly on
Debian on which AVLinux is based. SO pretty similar. I can't imagine a
Linux without commandline access. In all the time I have helped people in
IRC, I have never had someone be unable to find a terminal when asked to
run a command line "something". (some people had to be told what to look
for mind you :) ) sh the most basic shell in linux/unix is so much more
powerful than windows/dos CMD, that it is unlikely to be abandoned. Much
of the linux startup is shell based even with systemd or upstart.
Honestly, I think if any Linux was going to not ship shell access, it
would be Ubuntu... so If ubuntu has it anything else should too.
Sorry if it came out like a rant, to put things another way, Audio work
tends to be more like development than many other uses.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
10:40 a.m.
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:55:00 -0800 (PST), Len Ovens wrote:
I can't imagine a Linux without commandline access.
In context of Karen's original request, I suspect that with "command
line access" also is meant "easy to compile".
The tools to build software are available for all distros.
However, software often depends on other software, so dependencies
could cause issues.
Usually developers write software that is based on dependencies that
are up-to-date, but for several reasons some distros do not provide
up-to-date software.
For example Ubuntu, a release model distro provides 2 kind of releases.
1. Long term support releases that usually only get security relevant
updates: Nothing else will be updated, not only to provide stability,
but also to provide a steady work-flow. Employers can't train employees
each month using new software releases.
2. Half year releases: But even those releases do not provide
up-to-date software, when they get released the provided software could
be outdated since month.
For example Arch Linux is a rolling release. It always provides current
stable software releases from upstream.
There are other important policies.
Some distros try to make maintaining Linux user space easy for noobs,
but that's not necessarily a pleasure for power-users.
A policy to auto-start everything that could be auto-started, to
automatically install some optional dependencies and to not install
some other optional dependencies by default could become a PITA for
for inexperienced users and power-users with special needs such as audio
production.
Some distros exclude software with disputed licenses.
Linuxsample is the most famous example, most likely available by third
party repositories for e.g. Ubuntu.
Some distros do not split packages into binaries and source code
packages.
Some distros do not install header files that are needed to build
software from source code by default. The package names are not equal
to the upstream names. Usually those distros provide tools to
automatically install build dependencies. Other distros keep the names
from upstream and by default header files are installed, when
installing the binaries. Tools might allow to prohibit installing
files, e.g. headers for those distros, assumed somebody does not want
to install everything provided by a package.
FWIW even the concept of packages could be very different. Arch Linux
for example in addition to the packages provides a FreeBSD ports like
approach.
Regards,
Ralf
12:15 p.m.
Hey hey Kare,
not having followed the thread completely, I'd like to say this: I use Debian
Squeeze and it works. There are enough commandline tools. ArchLinux seems to
offer an even better commandline structure in some ways. I'm not sure about
Nama and Midish for ArchLinux, I know, that there is a Nama package for
Debian. In any case, you'd need to update this manually to the most recent
version to have some real fun.
I'm not sure about lowlatency kernels for Debian and Arch. But I think, you
can get a lowlatency kernel from Ubuntu for Debian, though it might be a
little awkward. I'm usng a standard kernel and the latency is quite OK.
Which hardware synth do you use for speec? If it was supported by Linux, it
usually still is, they rarely throw stuff away. :) Support would either be
directly in the kernel or in BRLTTY, the braille driver. It not only supports
braille displays, but also speech hard- and software.
Espeak, the free Linux speech synth, is not very pleasant, but usable.
Ta-ta
----
Ffanci
* Homepage: https://freeshell.de/~silvain
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffanci_silvain
* GitHub: https://github.com/fsilvain
12:39 p.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:15:02 +0100 (CET), F. Silvain wrote:
I'm not sure about lowlatency kernels for Debian
and Arch.
Arch provides packages for linux-rt and linux-rt-lts (long term
support) by a repository, http://archaudio.org/ and if you prefer to
compile it yourself, by the so called AUR too.
Debian and Ubuntu provide kernel build tools to easily build linux-rt
packages yourself. Ubuntu provides a so called lowlatency kernel by the
official repositories. Rui's rtirq script is available by Arch Linux
(AUR) and by Debian/Ubuntu packages, the rtirq versions provided by
Debian/Ubuntu not always fit to the provided kernels, rtirq status
will show. A default kernel could be booted with the 'threadirqs'
option, then even a default kernel is real-time capable, but it's still
best practise to use linux-rt.
Building a kernel based on default configs takes around 90 minutes
with an AMD Athlon dual-core 2.1 GHz, 4 GB RAM.
Regards,
Ralf
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
22 Dec
22 Dec
12:48 a.m.
Why did this discussion shift to my hardware synthesizer when I am asking
about distributions specifically written for audio professionals?
Let me post a link to an article that illustrates what I am asking about.
Linux does not support the reading edge, since you asked.
Kare
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, F. Silvain wrote:
Hey hey Kare,
not having followed the thread completely, I'd like to say this: I use Debian
Squeeze and it works. There are enough commandline tools. ArchLinux seems to
offer an even better commandline structure in some ways. I'm not sure about
Nama and Midish for ArchLinux, I know, that there is a Nama package for
Debian. In any case, you'd need to update this manually to the most recent
version to have some real fun.
I'm not sure about lowlatency kernels for Debian and Arch. But I think, you
can get a lowlatency kernel from Ubuntu for Debian, though it might be a
little awkward. I'm usng a standard kernel and the latency is quite OK.
Which hardware synth do you use for speec? If it was supported by Linux, it
usually still is, they rarely throw stuff away. :) Support would either be
directly in the kernel or in BRLTTY, the braille driver. It not only supports
braille displays, but also speech hard- and software.
Espeak, the free Linux speech synth, is not very pleasant, but usable.
Ta-ta
----
Ffanci
* Homepage: https://freeshell.de/~silvain
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffanci_silvain
* GitHub: https://github.com/fsilvain
1:42 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:48:33 -0500 (EST), Karen Lewellen wrote:
distributions specifically written for audio
professionals
Software for Linux distributions isn't individually written for a
distro, excepted of a few tools, such as package management tools.
Distros are collections of software written to run together with a Linux
kernel, but this software could be used by every distro.
Audio distros usually are derivatives of a major non-audio distro.
The difference between distros is the policy regarding
- licenses
- the package management
- the way software is upgraded or not upgraded
As already pointed out by Len, command line isn't an issue for any
distro, the default login shell for most, if not all distros most
likely is bash. The sh link for some older distros might default to
dash, but usually defaults to bash either. Other shells are very
unusual for Linux.
For command line work you should be able to be aware of bash and it's
safe to know the differences to dash, but that isn't that hard, other
shells are unimportant. This is the same for all distros. Regarding
command line the differences between distros are mostly package
management related tools.
There are few minor differences that are unimportant, e.g. the source
for /bin/su has impact to the way variables get reset. This not really
has much impact to the command line usage.
IOW you need to take a look at the policies of the distros. If you want
to compile software from upstream, what is required to do this? Latest
versions of libraries or are older versions ok? Is the policy of the
distro to provide upgrades close to upstream, or is the policy to
provide a steady work-flow by only providing security related upgrades?
Etc. ... I already gave a few hints by my previous reply.
Why did this discussion shift to my hardware
synthesizer
F. Silvain likely mentions BRLTTY, because you mentioned that you need
old kernels to use your synth.
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
2:13 a.m.
Hi Ralf, others.
I am referring to distributions such as those referenced here:
http://libremusicproduction.com/articles/advantages-choosing-audio-orientat…
Granted I am told one benefit of such distributions is that the
compiling work is already done, including choosing a low latency
kernel. However there are some repositories or tools that can
be added like the Liquorix repositories in Debian?
yes, i know all Linux distributions share common elements.
what I am asking is which distros among the sort referenced in the
article
above, are going to be already compiled with an easy door to the
command line?
Or, does one just run a keyboard command like Lyn <I think > provided?
speaking only for myself, I do not feel very good about Ubuntu, but still.
Hope this tightens focus on my actual question lol.
Karen
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:48:33 -0500 (EST), Karen
Lewellen wrote:
distributions specifically written for audio
professionals
Software for Linux distributions isn't individually written for a
distro, excepted of a few tools, such as package management tools.
Distros are collections of software written to run together with a Linux
kernel, but this software could be used by every distro.
Audio distros usually are derivatives of a major non-audio distro.
The difference between distros is the policy regarding
- licenses
- the package management
- the way software is upgraded or not upgraded
As already pointed out by Len, command line isn't an issue for any
distro, the default login shell for most, if not all distros most
likely is bash. The sh link for some older distros might default to
dash, but usually defaults to bash either. Other shells are very
unusual for Linux.
For command line work you should be able to be aware of bash and it's
safe to know the differences to dash, but that isn't that hard, other
shells are unimportant. This is the same for all distros. Regarding
command line the differences between distros are mostly package
management related tools.
There are few minor differences that are unimportant, e.g. the source
for /bin/su has impact to the way variables get reset. This not really
has much impact to the command line usage.
IOW you need to take a look at the policies of the distros. If you want
to compile software from upstream, what is required to do this? Latest
versions of libraries or are older versions ok? Is the policy of the
distro to provide upgrades close to upstream, or is the policy to
provide a steady work-flow by only providing security related upgrades?
Etc. ... I already gave a few hints by my previous reply.
Why did this discussion shift to my hardware
synthesizer
F. Silvain likely mentions BRLTTY, because you mentioned that you need
old kernels to use your synth.
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:03 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:12:58 -0500 (EST), Karen Lewellen wrote:
what I am asking is which distros among the sort
referenced in the
article above, are going to be already compiled with an easy door to
the command line?
Or, does one just run a keyboard command like Lyn <I think > provided?
Yes, all distros provide it by a keyboard shortcut as mentioned by Len.
They are provided by the function keys and they are not necessarily the
same by default, nowadays they are usually Ctrl+Alt+F1 to Ctrl+Alt+F6
and to get back the window manager Ctrl+Alt+F7.
Since you mentioned the speech synth I assume you're visually impaired.
For those using GUI's, I recommend to install a terminal emulation named
roxterm, there is no better terminal emulation available.
I use an openbox shortcut to open roxterm and once it's running the
same shortcut to open roxterm tabs, on Arch Linux and Ubuntu.
The login shell most likely is bash, so the command line behaves in the
bash style and the settings are in your home [1].
Globbing (the way wildcards work), basic commands (bashisms) are the
same for all distros.
[1]
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ ls -Ggh .bash*
-rw------- 1 9.8K Dec 22 02:17 .bash_history
-rw-r--r-- 1 21 Jan 27 2013 .bash_logout
-rw-r--r-- 1 57 Jan 27 2013 .bash_profile
-rw-r--r-- 1 2.5K Oct 23 02:00 .bashrc
3:10 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:12:58 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
yes, i know all Linux distributions share common
elements.
what I am asking is which distros among the sort referenced in the
article
above, are going to be already compiled with an easy door to the
command line?
They're all the same. Same as Windows for that matter. They boot in a
desktop interface then with the mouse one can click on the terminal
application icon which will then pop up a window with a Linux console
prompt. Many desktop managers allows configuration of a key sequence
to call applications. KXStudio uses the KDE desktop manager. Others
might be using also KDE, or Cinnamon, Mate, Gnome, etc, there are a
certain number of desktop managers out there although they all more or
less behave the same.
Do you have any special needs ?
If so, please state them so it will be easier to provide suggestions.
Cheers.
3:16 a.m.
Actually...someone else started a synthesizer discussion, some effort to
recruit my help doing things that have nothing whatsoever to do with how I
use a computer.
I do not have a Linux box at all yet, No talent in Toronto so far for
the help....which is why there is a Linux audio distribution discussion
happening on the gTA Lug list right now, so I can choose from an informed
position. Regardless, based on what I do with my main computer, the box
will be firmly run via ssh TELNET.
No thoughts between those specific professional audio distributions?
If they are interchangeable, then I may seek out avlinux since my
understanding is it is Debian based.
I wanted to keep squeeze because I have a full set of discs for it, but
the Latency discussion has me wondering since low latency Kernels are a
must, at least for me, where the pro audio work is concerned.
Kare
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:12:58 -0500 (EST), Karen
Lewellen wrote:
what I am asking is which distros among the sort
referenced in the
article above, are going to be already compiled with an easy door to
the command line?
Or, does one just run a keyboard command like Lyn <I think > provided?
Yes, all distros provide it by a keyboard shortcut as mentioned by Len.
They are provided by the function keys and they are not necessarily the
same by default, nowadays they are usually Ctrl+Alt+F1 to Ctrl+Alt+F6
and to get back the window manager Ctrl+Alt+F7.
Since you mentioned the speech synth I assume you're visually impaired.
For those using GUI's, I recommend to install a terminal emulation named
roxterm, there is no better terminal emulation available.
I use an openbox shortcut to open roxterm and once it's running the
same shortcut to open roxterm tabs, on Arch Linux and Ubuntu.
The login shell most likely is bash, so the command line behaves in the
bash style and the settings are in your home [1].
Globbing (the way wildcards work), basic commands (bashisms) are the
same for all distros.
[1]
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ ls -Ggh .bash*
-rw------- 1 9.8K Dec 22 02:17 .bash_history
-rw-r--r-- 1 21 Jan 27 2013 .bash_logout
-rw-r--r-- 1 57 Jan 27 2013 .bash_profile
-rw-r--r-- 1 2.5K Oct 23 02:00 .bashrc
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:25 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:10:44 -0500, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
Do you have any special needs ?
Karen mentioned a hardware speech synth, so desktop environments likely
need to fit good to the speech synth. Seemingly software solutions such
as Orca and what ever might be available for the terminal, are not that
comfortable.
I guess the shortcuts first mentioned by Len are the best way to get
access to command line and perhaps BRLTTY as mentioned by F. Silvain is
the way to get output from command line. IIRC Julien or somebody else
from this list once had issues installing a distro using Braille,
because the installer didn't provide BRLTTY. IOW Karen might need help
to install a distro, before the speech synth can be used.
3:30 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:12:58 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
Or, does one just run a keyboard command like Lyn
<I think >
provided?
If you are visually impaired, then perhaps you can also ask Aiyumi, who
posted here some time ago. She is Japanese living in Brazil and is
using a Linux distribution to make music. Her email, which can be
found in her messages here, is: Aiyumi Moriya <aiyumi.br(a)gmail.com>
Her blog is at: http://aiyumi.warpstar.net/en/
http://aiyumi.warpstar.net/en/blog/how-i-started-using-linux/
http://aiyumi.warpstar.net/en/blog/adventures-with-a-new-computer/
She might add suggestions for visually impaired uses of a Linux distro
for music uses.
As for choosing a music-specific distro, I will do this for the first
time next year. presently, I run an ordinary Linux Mint distro, no
special kernel, and it works find for making music. So it could be
that the latency concerns are less when the machine is relatively
recent. In this case an Intel i5-3570 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16G of RAM.
Cheers.
3:38 a.m.
Likely Ubuntu Studio allows a good beginning.
https://ubuntustudio.org/
I prefer Arch Linux, but it's neither an audio distro, nor easy to
use for newbies.
Regarding the speech synth you should consider to get information from
blind Linux users. There are not that many visible impaired Linux users
subscribed to this list.
I don't know if the below links are useful.
http://leb.net/blinux/
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Accessibility-HOWTO/visual.html
http://vinuxproject.org/
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TalkingArch
3:38 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:16:15 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
Regardless, based on what I do with my
main computer, the box will be firmly run via ssh TELNET.
Why would you access the machine remotely ?
Technically speaking there is no such thing as ssh telnet. These two
are different, ssh being secure, telnet not secure.
No thoughts between those specific professional audio
distributions?
If it is professional, then they will charge for it. So these are not
professional products per se.
If they are interchangeable, then I may seek out
avlinux since my
understanding is it is Debian based.
KXStudio is based on Ubuntu packages, which in turn is based on Debian.
I wanted to keep squeeze because I have a full set of
discs for it,
but the Latency discussion has me wondering since low latency Kernels
are a must, at least for me, where the pro audio work is concerned.
Kare
As I have replied a few minutes ago, I have never looked out for
latency except perhaps 12 years ago. All current kernels are OK to
make music, record projects using plugins, render, etc that is, on a
recent machine. So it depends on the machine.
3:54 a.m.
You wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
Do you have any special needs ?
You bet, someone in the city of Toronto who
understands Linux enough to
assist with configuration.
I raised my other special needs when i asked a grand while back about
outfitting a computer for Linux music work.
I am choosing the m-audio audiophile 2496 as a result for example.
Looked at a couple of Yamaha keyboards on Sunday, including the Motif fx8.
but without a well built house, one cannot move in the furniture grins.
Kare
If so, please state them so it will be easier to provide suggestions.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:56 a.m.
No they do not.
I will not be using speech at all on this computer.
Linux does not even support those tools for me at all.
Karen
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:10:44 -0500,
jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
Do you have any special needs ?
Karen mentioned a hardware speech synth, so desktop environments likely
need to fit good to the speech synth. Seemingly software solutions such
as Orca and what ever might be available for the terminal, are not that
comfortable.
I guess the shortcuts first mentioned by Len are the best way to get
access to command line and perhaps BRLTTY as mentioned by F. Silvain is
the way to get output from command line. IIRC Julien or somebody else
from this list once had issues installing a distro using Braille,
because the installer didn't provide BRLTTY. IOW Karen might need help
to install a distro, before the speech synth can be used.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:57 a.m.
Is it your assumption that everyone who may have a shared label are the
same?
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:12:58 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
Or, does one just run a keyboard command like
Lyn <I think >
provided?
If you are visually impaired, then perhaps you can also ask Aiyumi, who
posted here some time ago. She is Japanese living in Brazil and is
using a Linux distribution to make music. Her email, which can be
found in her messages here, is: Aiyumi Moriya <aiyumi.br(a)gmail.com>
Her blog is at: http://aiyumi.warpstar.net/en/
http://aiyumi.warpstar.net/en/blog/how-i-started-using-linux/
http://aiyumi.warpstar.net/en/blog/adventures-with-a-new-computer/
She might add suggestions for visually impaired uses of a Linux distro
for music uses.
As for choosing a music-specific distro, I will do this for the first
time next year. presently, I run an ordinary Linux Mint distro, no
special kernel, and it works find for making music. So it could be
that the latency concerns are less when the machine is relatively
recent. In this case an Intel i5-3570 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16G of RAM.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4 a.m.
my office uses Ubuntu, and I am willing to guess that mileage must vary.
that daily experience has me firmly against investing my professional life
in Ubuntu if I can help it.
the rest are not relevant to how I intend using this box.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Likely Ubuntu Studio allows a good beginning.
https://ubuntustudio.org/
I prefer Arch Linux, but it's neither an audio distro, nor easy to
use for newbies.
Regarding the speech synth you should consider to get information from
blind Linux users. There are not that many visible impaired Linux users
subscribed to this list.
I don't know if the below links are useful.
http://leb.net/blinux/
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Accessibility-HOWTO/visual.html
http://vinuxproject.org/
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TalkingArch
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4:11 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
Why would you access the machine remotely ?
because I can, it saves me time, I have limited space etc. etc.
h>
Technically speaking there is no such thing as ssh
telnet. These two
are different, ssh being secure, telnet not secure.
Oh really? you may want to tell the person who wrote the ssh tellnet
client
I am using right now, to reach the Freedsb shell at which I am writing
this email laughter!
If it is professional, then they will charge for it. So these are not
professional products per se.
Oh how funny!
did you read the article at all?
professional audio production, as to contrast with consumer based
production, that may not be the best way to define the distinction, but
never mind.
You are thinking of the wrong industry definition.
4:12 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:00:49 -0500 (EST), Karen Lewellen wrote:
my office uses Ubuntu, and I am willing to guess that
mileage must
vary. that daily experience has me firmly against investing my
professional life in Ubuntu if I can help it.
the rest are not relevant to how I intend using this box.
Ubuntu Studio is an Ubuntu flavour, IOW it's official part of Ubuntu,
but anyway comes with another environment, different default settings.
It's intended for all kinds of artwork, including audio and the
provided workflow has less to do with office software running on Unity.
4:26 a.m.
Oh for heaven sake.
have you any idea how many populations, for various reasons, use speech
synthesizers as apart of their computing?
Like those with dyslexia and other print challenges, autism, other
cognitive disorders, and of course those for whom speech itself is an
issue?
No matter how well meaning you may think you are being, to suggest that
all those who may, or may not share a label based on the use of technology
commonly built into general commercial products are the same is to
project a counterproductive stereotype.
I haven't the vaguest notion who you are referring to save that they do
not live here. still I respect them enough as people to know with 100%
firmness that they are living their own experiences creating in their own
ways, and worthy of my deciding that they are not automatically
expert on my needs, any more than I am expert on theirs.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:30:33 -0500,
jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
If you are visually impaired, then perhaps you
can also ask
There are a few subscribed to the list and likely one already is
participating to the thread ;).
--
Affinities to Britney Spears are suspect :p
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:18 a.m.
Hey hey Kare,
from my point of view - working on the commandline with audio -, the
specialised audio distributions are mostly specialised in the graphical areas.
Granted they have the kernels and some additional software very handily
available. But for commandline work that is such a minor concern, compared to
the tools, that you really use, that after some research I didn't think it
worth it. That is why, I turned to Debian and am now thinking of switching to
archlinux, since they have even better and more up-to-date commandline tools,
including some audio packages.
From this point of view, I asked about your speech
synth. The thought being:
if there's one Linux that might support it, it might
be as easy to set up the
audio software as on any other system. With that you might have even used some
graphic audio tools. Without that, I think you are restricted to commandline
tools and thus a professional audio distro as such, seems even less important.
Ta-ta
----
Ffanci
* Homepage: https://freeshell.de/~silvain
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffanci_silvain
* GitHub: https://github.com/fsilvain
8:32 a.m.
On 22/12/15 at 08:18am, F. Silvain wrote:
Hey hey Kare,
from my point of view - working on the commandline with audio -, the
specialised audio distributions are mostly specialised in the graphical
areas. Granted they have the kernels and some additional software very
handily available. But for commandline work that is such a minor concern,
compared to the tools, that you really use, that after some research I
didn't think it worth it. That is why, I turned to Debian and am now
thinking of switching to archlinux, since they have even better and more
up-to-date commandline tools, including some audio packages.
From this point of view, I asked about your speech synth. The thought being:
if there's one Linux that might support it, it might be as easy to set up
the audio software as on any other system. With that you might have even
used some graphic audio tools. Without that, I think you are restricted to
commandline tools and thus a professional audio distro as such, seems even
less important.
Ta-ta
This thread is somewhat astonishing.
"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless: if are used to commandline you
don't need
it to be friendly, if you're not you should give up dealing with it.
In the first case you know how to install tools not shipped with the regular distro
release (eg. apt, yum, pacman... or any other package management tool), moreover you
should be able to build everything from sources.
In the second case, if you can't deal with a package manager or a configure/make/make
install sequence then there's no friendly commandline out there which fits your
needs.
regards
/r
--
«My mama said to get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom»
10:56 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:26:11 -0500 (EST), Karen Lewellen wrote:
have you any idea how many populations, for various
reasons, use
speech synthesizers as apart of their computing?
Like those with dyslexia and other print challenges, autism, other
cognitive disorders, and of course those for whom speech itself is an
issue?
People on this list try to help you, to get your speech synth working
with Linux, since you first mentioned that it only works when using an
old version of Debian. If you dislike to get help with the speech
synth, than it was probably not wise to mention it, especially since
"hardware synth" in the context of an audio mailing list easily could
have been misunderstood as a musical instrument.
Assumed you need help with repairing a car, would you ask a plumber or
an automotive mechatronics engineer for hints how to do it?
If I would like to use a speech synth with Linux I would ask visible
impaired users how to use it, because this user group most likely is
the hugest group using such equipment. Btw. I'm a dyslexic of the type
were words become coloured bars, were characters walk around the paper,
IOW I join the complete mushroom alike experience and never heard of
dyslexic using speech synth and never considered to use one myself.
Anyway, sometimes a plumber knows how to repair a car, but you better
request help from an automotive mechatronics engineer to repair a car.
If you ask for hints what distro to use for audio in combination with
command line, we only can give you help based on the information you
provide, we can't read your mind.
IMO it's not a good idea to remote control an audio workstation, I
would avoid any layer that could have impact to performance. Maybe it's
not an issue to remote control an audio workstation, but usually audio
users don't do it.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless
No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used distro has
impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line mainly to compile
software that isn't availbale by the repositories for the packages,
then it makes a difference if a user e.g. chose a long term support
release distro or a distro that often provide releases or a rolling
release.
Regards,
Ralf
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
11:39 a.m.
On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases are long term
support or
not.
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at all, apples and oranges.
Repost can be added and source code is available, if someone can't manage with repos
and
source code the problem is not the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on your distro and
compiling has nothing to do with the one you choose.
--
«My mama said to get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom»
"commandline friendly" is totally
meaningless
No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used distro has
impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line mainly to compile
software that isn't availbale by the repositories for the packages,
then it makes a difference if a user e.g. chose a long term support
release distro or a distro that often provide releases or a rolling
release.
12:05 p.m.
PS:
If you shouldn't be visibly impaired and assumed you should have issues
with reading for what other reason ever, then consider to use less
command line, but more GUIs to do audio recordings.
The reason for this is, that GUIs for audio work usually don't require
reading and that it's harder to do audio work, if Mr. Hawking does
interrupt it by breaking in.
Having issues with reading (but even if reading should be an easy
pleasure) and the wish to use the computer to do audio work, GUIs are
much more pleasant to use, than command line, assumed the user isn't
visible impaired. Tools for audio related work are much more "visually"
then "verbally", so if possible users should use GUI based tools
instead of command line tool. Especially creative audio artwork (music)
is mostly done by the right cerebral hemisphere, so closer to the
"visually" way of thinking, then to the "verbally" way of thinking.
I'm usually using command line instead of file managers and similar
tools, since a few bash commands are easier to use, and give a
better overview, then to learn how to use complicated GUI tools with
confusing overviews. However for audio work, especially for artwork I
prefer GUIs over command line, since it does absolutely require no
verbally thinking and reading (assumed the GUI is self explaining,
following common standards), everything is plain visually, even signs
(play, record, scroll etc.) are not that confusing as letter put
together to words are (Ilbdpqmn).
12:24 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Please care about the OP's request.
Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a steady
work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let alone
special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries. If the
main reason to use command line is to compile software, then it's wise
to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just one example
why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you care about a
context.
The OP asks about what is provided out of the box and so
"command line friendly" also means to be able to follow howtos that
explain command line for out of the box usage of distros.
The most common login shell for Linux is bash and absolutely no other
shell, it's just worth to mention dash too, all other shells are in
context to the OP's request absolutely irrelevant.
There could be other reasons to prefer command line over GUIs, e.g.
the need to use Braille. Using audio software that can be used easily
with Braille doesn't require knowledge about the package management or
how to compile. That's why we explained that access to the command line
is easy by all distros, in this context all distros are "command line
friendly".
Regards,
Ralf
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases are
long term support or not.
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at all,
apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is available,
if someone can't manage with repos and source code the problem is not
the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on your
distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you choose. "commandline friendly" is totally
meaningless
No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used distro
has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line mainly to
compile software that isn't availbale by the repositories for the
packages, then it makes a difference if a user e.g. chose a long
term support release distro or a distro that often provide releases
or a rolling release.
12:50 p.m.
On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and
mixing apples and
oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features upgrades.
On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so dependencies are kept up-to-date.
On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Please care about the OP's request.
Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a steady
work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let alone
special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries. If the
main reason to use command line is to compile software, then it's wise
to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just one example
why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you care about a
context.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases are
long term support or not.
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at all,
apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is available,
if someone can't manage with repos and source code the problem is not
the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on your
distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you choose. "commandline friendly" is totally
meaningless
No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used distro
has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line mainly to
compile software that isn't availbale by the repositories for the
packages, then it makes a difference if a user e.g. chose a long
term support release distro or a distro that often provide releases
or a rolling release.
The OP asks about what is provided out of the box and
so
"command line friendly" also means to be able to follow howtos that
explain command line for out of the box usage of distros.
The most common login shell for Linux is bash and absolutely no other
shell, it's just worth to mention dash too, all other shells are in
context to the OP's request absolutely irrelevant.
Nope, you can change login shell whenever you want, bash is just the default one.
man chsh
I wrote that shell is independent about the OP request, compiling is just the same on
zsh,
korn, sh, dash etc etc... you raised this obscure correlation with cli (command line) and
the LTS thing.
There could be other reasons to prefer command line over GUIs, e.g.
the need to use Braille. Using audio software that can be used easily
with Braille doesn't require knowledge about the package management or
how to compile. That's why we explained that access to the command line
is easy by all distros, in this context all distros are "command line
friendly".
Turn of the "spreading confusion" from your default choice Ralf ;-)
--
«My mama said to get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom»
1:06 p.m.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:11:11 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
> Technically speaking there is no such thing as
ssh telnet. These
> two are different, ssh being secure, telnet not secure.
Oh really?
Really.
you may want to tell the person who wrote the ssh
tellnet client
I am using right now, to reach the Freedsb shell at which I am
writing this email laughter!
Looks like you're more up to pick a fighting argument of sorts than
anything else.
> If it is professional, then they will charge for
it. So these are
> not professional products per se.
Oh how funny!
did you read the article at all?
I browsed through it. I am making music using Linux for 14 years now.
I am not at the introductory level. Linux is also bread and butter for
all that time.
And if I were a beginner, I would rather listen and learn instead of
trying to boast hollow arguments.
You are thinking of the wrong industry definition.
Some people are industrious at all kinds of things.
1:16 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100
Raffaele Morelli <raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
AGain, you are completely missing the "long term
support" thing and
mixing apples and oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features
upgrades. On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so
dependencies are kept up-to-date.
I run a LTS now and jackd must be upgraded. For Ardour to export
reliably. Not so easy. It will be done, but cycles will be spent.
Might as well go for a non-LTS next time, such as KXStudio.
Nope, you can change login shell whenever you want,
bash is just the
default one. man chsh
Sure, it is possible to choose one that will be the hardest to learn and
hardest to find solutions, if needed, since much less people are using
it. bash is the most common, is commonly found in major distros and
makes perfect sense when someone that sounds like a beginner asks for
general advice.
1:27 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
That's why most distros are user-friendly in this context, since howtos
usually assume that bash is the login shell. Bash usually is the default
and the OP asks for out of the box usage.
[root@moonstudio ~]# bash -c "apt-get purge
linux-{headers,image}-4.2.0-22-lowlatency"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
linux-headers-4.2.0-22
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
linux-headers-4.2.0-22-lowlatency* linux-headers-lowlatency*
linux-image-4.2.0-22-lowlatency*
linux-image-lowlatency* linux-lowlatency*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 5 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
After this operation, 220 MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
[root@moonstudio ~]# dash -c "apt-get purge
linux-{headers,image}-4.2.0-22-lowlatency"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package linux-{headers,image}-4.2.0-22-lowlatency
E: Regex compilation error - Invalid content of \{\}
E: Couldn't find any package by regex
'linux-{headers,image}-4.2.0-22-lowlatency'
Assumed a distro would not use bash as login shell out of the box, then
following howtos could become harder to understand.
On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
That's why in this context (compiling from upstream) using command line
is more user-friendly when not using a LTS release.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and
mixing apples and oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features
upgrades. On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so
dependencies are kept up-to-date. On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Please care about the OP's request.
Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a
steady work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let
alone special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries.
If the main reason to use command line is to compile software, then
it's wise to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just
one example why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you
care about a context.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
>"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless
No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used
distro has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line
mainly to compile software that isn't availbale by the
repositories for the packages, then it makes a difference if a
user e.g. chose a long term support release distro or a distro
that often provide releases or a rolling release.
Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases are
long term support or not.
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at all,
apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is
available, if someone can't manage with repos and source code the
problem is not the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on
your distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you
choose. The OP asks
about what is provided out of the box and so
"command line friendly" also means to be able to follow howtos that
explain command line for out of the box usage of distros.
The most common login shell for Linux is bash and absolutely no other
shell, it's just worth to mention dash too, all other shells are in
context to the OP's request absolutely irrelevant.
Nope, you can change login shell whenever you want, bash is just the
default one. man chsh I wrote that shell is independent about the OP request,
compiling is
just the same on zsh, korn, sh, dash etc etc... you raised this
obscure correlation with cli (command line) and the LTS thing.
You spread FUD, if you claim that there is no difference regarding
user-friendliness for command line usage. It depends to the context, to the
reason why a user does chose a distro.
Regards,
Ralf
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
There could be other reasons to prefer command line over GUIs, e.g.
the need to use Braille. Using audio software that can be used easily
with Braille doesn't require knowledge about the package management
or how to compile. That's why we explained that access to the
command line is easy by all distros, in this context all distros are
"command line friendly".
Turn of the "spreading confusion" from your default choice Ralf ;-)
2:01 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:27:43 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
Another thing to consider.
Assumed upstream mentions that "jackd2" is required to compile the
software.
On some distro you just need to have jack2 installed, e.g.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/jack2/files/
On other distros the software is split to packages, e.g.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/jackd2/filelist
some other jackd packages are hard dependencies, that are automatically
installed, but non does provide the headers, they are provided by a
package you manually need to install or that require using a tool to
automatically install the headers, auto-apt, apt-get build-dep ...
http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/libjack-jackd2-dev/filelist
So some users might consider this as less user-friendly.
Upstream unlikely will mention that you need libjack-jackd2-dev.
I do not rate the different approaches, I just inform that the OP
perhaps should consider what for the OP is more user-friendly.
Regards,
Ralf
On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
That's why in this context (compiling from upstream) using command line
is more user-friendly when not using a LTS release. On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and
mixing apples and oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features
upgrades. On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so
dependencies are kept up-to-date. On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> >"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless
>
> No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used
> distro has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line
> mainly to compile software that isn't availbale by the
> repositories for the packages, then it makes a difference if a
> user e.g. chose a long term support release distro or a distro
> that often provide releases or a rolling release.
>
Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases
are long term support or not.
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at
all, apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is
available, if someone can't manage with repos and source code the
problem is not the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on
your distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you
choose.
Please care about the OP's request.
Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a
steady work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let
alone special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries.
If the main reason to use command line is to compile software, then
it's wise to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just
one example why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you
care about a context.
2:20 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole
point at all
Context!
Some release model distros provide
releases
and
long term support releases
others only provide
long term support releases
others provide
releases
and one release of this distro might be considered as being a
rolling release
Some distros are just rolling releases.
Hairsplitting regarding the terms "release" and "distro" in this
context doesn't help
3:16 p.m.
Karen Lewellen wrote:
Hi all,
At the same time I am posting here, I am posting on the talk list of a LUG
here in the greater Toronto Area.
Two situations that members have asked about, referenced are bringing up
a couple of questions for me.
of the popular Linux distributions specifically developed for the
professional audio community, which is more likely to allow for command
line access?
Hi Karen,
Pretty much any distribution is command-line friendly
if you omit the X display manager (xdm, kdm, etc.)
Then when you boot up, you get a text login screen at a virtual terminal.
Maybe you can do all the work you need there.
If you want to use Gnu screen to provide more flexibility
such as a long scrollback buffer and copy/paste between
terminal sessions, it's easy to run in a virtual terminal.
If you need certain GUI apps, you will have to run X, and
find a way to support X over ssh, but I doubt your
speech platform could run ssh as a remote X display.
If you wanted to run X, you would login to a virtual
terminal, type 'startx' and have commands in your home
configuration files .xsession or .xinitrc to start a
terminal emulator and Gnu screen, along with whatever GUI
apps you want to bring up. I can't tell you what to do to
shift focus among GUI apps. It depends on the window manager
you choose. Most use a mouse.
I use the i3 tiling window manager and StartKey + Right or
Left arrow to switch among apps. You would need some
customization to read audibly out the name of the
application as you switched through them. Which you would
want.
But I don't see how running X would work with your current
screen reader. So just avoid installing an X display
manager, and you'll be golden to use any command
line programs your distribution provides. You'll find they
involve much less care and feeding than GUI programs,
as far as regards system resources, likelihood of crashing,
etc.
Good luck,
Joel
--
Joel Roth
4:55 p.m.
New subject: LTS jack - was - which lau distro is more commandline friendly?
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
I run a LTS now and jackd must be upgraded. For
Ardour to export
reliably. Not so easy. It will be done, but cycles will be spent.
Might as well go for a non-LTS next time, such as KXStudio.
Which LTS? I am also running an LTS (14.04) and jack (I have used jackdbus
pretty much from the start) has just worked. The API has not really
changed and I have had no problems compiling and installing the latest SW
or for that matter developing SW. The minor bug with this version can
easily be avoided by running Jack before anything else. "Nice" to upgrade
yes, "must", not so much.
In a world where the SW that is used is mostly "finished" not beta and not
still growing, LTS makes good sense. Even in the world most of us are in,
good stable work machines can be made using an LTS with the Network cable
pulled (even a non-LTS if it happens to have drivers or sw the user
needs).
Right now may be a good time not to upgrade with some distros as system
lib changes may give you daw->plugin incompatibilies. (ggc4 or gcc5)
Here is one of the problems with a) LTS set ahead of time on the calendar,
b) using LTS as set by a team that has no real interest in the audio
world. (this second really doesn't matter after the first is in place)
But somehow it works not to bad if you don't have to have the bleading
edge of everything. At least a new version is not going to break your
project at the end of your work on it.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
5:05 p.m.
New subject: LTS jack - was - which lau distro is more commandline friendly?
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 07:53:51 -0800 (PST), Len Ovens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
This seems to be the issue the OP experiences:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:34:09 +0100
From: Robin Gareus <robin(a)gareus.org>
To: "jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com" <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com>om>, ardour-users
<ardour-users(a)lists.ardour.org> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] No export
On 12/16/2015 02:13 PM, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
I run a LTS now and jackd must be upgraded. For
Ardour to export
reliably. Not so easy. It will be done, but cycles will be spent.
Might as well go for a non-LTS next time, such as KXStudio.
Which LTS? I am also running an LTS (14.04) and jack (I have used
jackdbus pretty much from the start) has just worked. The API has not
really changed and I have had no problems compiling and installing the
latest SW or for that matter developing SW. The minor bug with this
version can easily be avoided by running Jack before anything else.
"Nice" to upgrade yes, "must", not so much.
In a world where the SW that is used is mostly "finished" not beta and
not still growing, LTS makes good sense. Even in the world most of us
are in, good stable work machines can be made using an LTS with the
Network cable pulled (even a non-LTS if it happens to have drivers or
sw the user needs). Hello,
Before leaving I thought of doing a quick export to bring the audio
file with me but Ardour 4.4.0 refuses to export. Nothing happens.
Export starts and the progress bar does not move, but you can cancel
export? Are you using `jack2 --version` is less than 1.9.11 ?
If both are true: update jack or use a different engine to export.
Another option: some plugin in that session does not play nicely with
freewheeling. and a 3rd possibility: Are you using the alsa-loopback
device with jack (alsa_in/out)? On some systems this is apparently
breaks jack freewheeling.
best,
robin
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
23 Dec
23 Dec
1:11 a.m.
I never said such a thing.
I said that no Linux distribution supports the synthesizer I use. I also
said this is 100% unimportant because I have absolute zero interest in
running speech directly from my Linux setup.
what on earth is wrong with that?
Why is my desire to use a machine as I can such an issue with
people providing ideas I never asked for at all, and who are not going
to be using my computer?
I have a full set of Debian squeeze, after another Debian expert, again
leading with
their limited dictionary, sent me a hard drive with a so called
install...excluding any access to the internet whatsoever, and most of
Debian's function.
Help is terrific when it is on topic of what is requested.
i have never in any way shape fashion or form asked anyone on this list to
facilitate my use of speech directly on a Linux box. not at all never not
once.
I have asked more important for me, general questions about Linux and its
music making aspects, because I feel how I accommodate my *personal
experience* is my job...and no one else living unless I am paying them.
After all I am the only personal occupying this body which means I know
better than others what will or will not contribute to my professional
progress.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:26:11 -0500 (EST), Karen
Lewellen wrote:
have you any idea how many populations, for
various reasons, use
speech synthesizers as apart of their computing?
Like those with dyslexia and other print challenges, autism, other
cognitive disorders, and of course those for whom speech itself is an
issue?
People on this list try to help you, to get your speech synth working
with Linux, since you first mentioned that it only works when using an
old version of Debian. If you dislike to get help with the speech
synth, than it was probably not wise to mention it, especially since
"hardware synth" in the context of an audio mailing list easily could
have been misunderstood as a musical instrument.
Assumed you need help with repairing a car, would you ask a plumber or
an automotive mechatronics engineer for hints how to do it?
If I would like to use a speech synth with Linux I would ask visible
impaired users how to use it, because this user group most likely is
the hugest group using such equipment. Btw. I'm a dyslexic of the type
were words become coloured bars, were characters walk around the paper,
IOW I join the complete mushroom alike experience and never heard of
dyslexic using speech synth and never considered to use one myself.
Anyway, sometimes a plumber knows how to repair a car, but you better
request help from an automotive mechatronics engineer to repair a car.
If you ask for hints what distro to use for audio in combination with
command line, we only can give you help based on the information you
provide, we can't read your mind.
IMO it's not a good idea to remote control an audio workstation, I
would avoid any layer that could have impact to performance. Maybe it's
not an issue to remote control an audio workstation, but usually audio
users don't do it.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
"commandline friendly" is totally
meaningless
No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used distro has
impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line mainly to compile
software that isn't availbale by the repositories for the packages,
then it makes a difference if a user e.g. chose a long term support
release distro or a distro that often provide releases or a rolling
release.
Regards,
Ralf
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:40 a.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:11:56 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
Why is my desire to use a machine as I can such an
issue with
people providing ideas I never asked for at all, and who are not
going to be using my computer?
Since you ask: because you are not clear at all, jumping from one thing
to the other expecting people to follow as if they know you.
"... only option right now for blending speech with using the
Linux box in any reasonable to my standards way."
Argue as much as you want, the replies here just show it.
3:06 a.m.
Hi Karen,
strictly on-topic, regarding the subject "which lau distro is more
commandline friendly?"
All well known Linux distros, including the mentioned audio distros
provide easy access to the command line. All allow to access a
terminal and all default to bash for the login shell. From this point of
view, it makes no difference which distro you chose from the well known
distros, since from this point of view all those distros and all their
releases are "command line friendly".
From the point of view, what distro to chose, to compile software from
upstream, there are differences, since distros have different policies.
I don't know the defaults of the audio distros you mentioned, however,
a Debian based audio distro likely could be used with the Debian sid
repository and apt-pinning, while an Ubuntu LTS based distro just
provides backports, IOW a Debian based audio distro might be more
"command line friendly", if you want to compile software from upstream.
As far as I'm concerned, I use Ubuntu Studio and perhaps will add a
KXStudio PPA and I also use Arch Audio. I stay away from Debian and
especially from Debian derivatives.
Assumed you want to run jackd without running X, there might be
differences between defaults of distros either, but unlikely between an
Ubuntu based and a Debian based distro, since Debian is upstream for
Ubuntu. You'll notice that the Debian tracker mentions the Ubuntu
packages too, e.g. for jack2, https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/jackd2.
Hth,
Ralf
3:11 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:06:17 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I stay away from Debian and especially from Debian
derivatives.
Resp. the Debian derivative I use are Ubuntu flavours only and I don't
use Ubuntu derivatives
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
6:05 a.m.
I stopped reading earlier, considering the thread closed both to and for
me.
After all anyone who has ever made professional radio in the field knows
that one thing that makes programs like pro tools and Hindenburg
journalist worth the investment is keyboard control.
I value command line work the same. I type over 80 words a minute
and cannot imagine making anything entertainment wise, music or radio,
without solid keyboard usage.
Thanks, but Ignore them i certainly am.
Happy everything,
Kare
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Ivan K wrote:
The attitude on this woman is just amazing.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:45 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Assumed you want to run jackd without running X, there
might be
differences between defaults of distros either, but unlikely between an
I have run jackd2 and jackdbus on a headless system. (Ubuntu's mini.ISO
with whatever I wanted installed) I ran pulse on it too for that matter...
but it was no problem except for the very small ram (less than .25G).
Obviously my choice of applications was limited :) it was interesting
that some x libs did get installed but no x was ever started. It was more
to see what I could do with a 300mhz Pentium than any real expected use.
If I could have found more than 192M of ram, I may have tried harder.
I have also run graphic audio programs remotely (ssh -Y style). I first
run xfce-panel from dbus_launch so that all the processes share the same
"session". I use the menu on the panel to start anything else.
SSH server pre installed in a Linux distro is not a certainty though the
client is pretty much.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
10:23 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:05:50 -0500 (EST), Karen Lewellen wrote:
After all anyone who has ever made professional radio
in the field
knows that one thing that makes programs like pro tools and Hindenburg
journalist worth the investment is keyboard control.
And what has got keyboard control of those non-Linux GUI apps to do with
Linux command line? Linux GUI audio tools provide keyboard control too.
I value command line work the same. I type over 80
words a minute
and cannot imagine making anything entertainment wise, music or
radio, without solid keyboard usage.
For what exactly do wish to use a "friendly command line"?
Command line usually is considered user-friendly, because you neither
need to type fast, nor to type much.
The tab-key auto-completes paths, the cursor key scroll though the
history of commands, there are shortcuts such as Ctrl+L, Ctrl+D, Ctrl+C,
Bash comes with Brace expansion, replace and add something from/to a
command e.g.
$ sudo some_long_command
$ sudo !!
Results in
sudo some_long_command
$ !! -a -b -c
Results in
sudo some_long_command -a -b -c
$ ^_long^_very_long
Results in
sudo some_very_long_command -a -b -c
The Arch Wikis are valid what ever distro you'll use.
Keyword: readline
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Readline
Keyword: aliases
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bash#Aliases
Beyond that the sensational roxterm provides window functionality non
of the terminal emulations provided by desktop environments provide,
e.g. something banal as re-wrapping text when resizing the window.
However, GUI apps usually provide shortcuts (keyboard control) too and
usually the user can assign shortcuts. I guess it's harder to buy a
special keyboard that fits to a FLOSS Linux app, than to get such a
keyboard for proprietary software, such a keyboard for FLOSS Linux
apps most likely needs to be self-made.
Perhaps keyboard stickers are good enough, something like this,
http://www.ioffer.com/i/blender-keyboard-sticker-164787345.
For my Atari ST's keyboard I used Letraset. For my Linux PC I don't use
special keyboards.
10:36 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:23:27 +0100, I mistyped:
$ sudo some_long_command
$ sudo !!
*chuckle*
It should read
$ some_long_command
$ sudo !!
Results in
sudo some_long_command
$ !! -a -b -c
Results in
sudo some_long_command -a -b -c
$ ^_long^_very_long
Results in
sudo some_very_long_command -a -b -c
As already pointed out, such "user-friendliness" for command line is
provided by all common distros.
--
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/
27 Dec
27 Dec
1:17 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 06:59:11AM -0500, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:57:10 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
And yet 'sharing' isn't one of them! <*so confused*>
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Is it your assumption that everyone who may have
a shared label are
the same?
Only one word is right in the above: sharing.
28 Dec
28 Dec
2:06 a.m.
F. Silvain wrote:
Hey hey Kare,
from my point of view - working on the commandline with audio -, the
specialised audio distributions are mostly specialised in the graphical
areas. Granted they have the kernels and some additional software very
handily available. But for commandline work that is such a minor concern,
compared to the tools, that you really use, that after some research I
didn't think it worth it. That is why, I turned to Debian and am now
thinking of switching to archlinux, since they have even better and more
up-to-date commandline tools, including some audio packages.
I think it must be frustrating for Karen to have to ask
if she doesn't have a command line to start playing with
stuff referred to in answers.
When she mentions keyboard shortcuts, she refers to
ProTools.
With Linux, especially in the world of command line
software, you end up gluing together an assortment of
utilities, Gnu screen configuration, shells aliases, and
probably several of your own scripts.
Then there is getting to know a pager such as 'less'
and a text editor, such as nano or vim.
All as friendly as can be, but with the well-known Unix
learning curve for the terminal environment, shell, command
names, and key bindings.
--
Joel Roth
2:53 a.m.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Joel Roth wrote:
I think it must be frustrating for Karen to have to ask
if she doesn't have a command line to start playing with
stuff referred to in answers.
Thanks, but in a very important way I do, strong emphasis on important
way.
Shellworld is a comparative Unix based command line. For example i know
nano, and Pico its older edition. have run screen in the past etc.
Far less to my tastes, I use comparative shells in other editions, Ubuntu
for example.
However the uniqueness about Linux and Unix is just how individually things
can be configured.
This is why I am constructing the box I have in mind totally separate from
my main computer, to duplicate something I do daily, treating it like a
server, and using the other tools I require to access and understand that
server apart from the Linux construction itself.
scripting yes, i know someone willing and able to do this for me, so that I
am, for me, working form a firm base, leaving me to focus totally
on learning how to use the tools I feel will allow me to make music as I
desire.
This is me however, I would not diminish the experiences of others by
suggesting they should do this my way.
I am amazed that others think they should do as much to me.
When she mentions keyboard shortcuts, she refers to
ProTools.
Certainly, but I also lead with years of conventional editing that does
not require using adaptive tools whatsoever. You edit by listening to our
source material, not by reading a screen.
Still I would not expect someone who has not learned this way to
understand.
I would hope they might ask more than assume, but that is immaterial.
Your tools are terrific for my goals, and you provide manuals
for learning.
I have been using this Unix shell for what decades surely, and never lost
my ability to think command line by ever using windows.
so, my main goal is getting a totally separate Linux box built accessing
the many command line tools that serve my purpose and rendering my music
into printed form the best way I can.
If no one else works this way, its perfectly fine by me.
after all if every artist created in the same fashion we would have no
Michael Angelo's would we?
Kare
11:16 a.m.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:53:24 -0500 (EST), Karen Lewellen wrote:
after all if every artist created in the same fashion
we would have
no Michael Angelo's would we?
Just out of curiosity, in what way did Michelangelo used artistic tools
in an absurd unusual way?
You mention a common work-flow with proprietary GUI software and
mentions that you expect such a work-flow for your special, unusual
"Michael Angelo" alike Linux work-flow. Your claims are illogical, your
questions are cloudy.
Actually you never asked a smart question. A lot of people try to
answer your questions and you just got arsey to them.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Shellworld is a comparative Unix based command line.
For example i
know nano, and Pico its older edition. have run screen in the past
etc. Far less to my tastes, I use comparative shells in other editions,
Ubuntu for example.
What "comparative shells" did you use with Ubuntu? What are you talking
about? How could we help you, if just claim something without gioving
more information.
However the uniqueness about Linux and Unix is just how
individually
things can be configured.
If you wish to configure your real-time capable Linux usable, then
there isn't much choice, even not for Michelangelo alike genii.
scripting yes, i know someone willing and able to do
this for me, so
that I am, for me, working form a firm base, leaving me to focus
totally on learning how to use the tools I feel will allow me to make
music as I desire.
You still seems not to understand how command line does work, since
this sentence doesn't make sense. It's one of your illogical claims. If
you are willing to learn how to use command line tools, then it's the
same as learning how to write scripts. This aren't two separated things.
11:40 a.m.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:53:24 -0500 (EST)
Karen Lewellen <klewellen(a)shellworld.net> wrote:
Your tools are terrific for my goals, and you provide
manuals
for learning.
This is all so unclear that I had to look him up to see what you're
talking about. Joel is at the Debian QA.
Shellworld is a comparative Unix based command line.
That one was harder to find. It looks like it is an interface of
sorts for bacula, maybe dating from 2001. Then again, in looking it up
one finds some of your recent posts in the Blind Linux (BLinux) mailing
list.
So after all when you replied abruptly after I have suggested
advice from an experienced person I remembered in this context (to which
she has graciously replied), there was no fault at all.
Then again it is, say, strange that at shellworld.net, when clicking on
the blog link, a browser dialog box appears warning the user that an
application is about to be opened. To which the user presses Cancel,
of course. Javascript should probably remain disabled when visiting
that page.
I'm afraid not everyone lives in the Shire and knows the neighbour Bob
and the other guy down the road. Clarity and conciseness are
important, even if it seems that focusing on these leaves behind
important life matters.
12:10 p.m.
I wrote:
Just out of curiosity, in what way did Michelangelo
used artistic tools
in an absurd unusual way?
Or perhaps Michael Angelo Batio?
I don't know this guitarist's music, but IIUC a guitarist who's music I
know does the same, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jordan,
however tapping is an averaged, common guitar playing technique, it's
not unusual, most of us just don't do it that often (and perhaps not
that perfect) as e.g. Stanley Jordan does. It's just unusual to build
show guitars for tapping. If you use this as an analogy, then you should
write your own command line (tools).
3062
days inactive
3070
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
55 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Chris Bannister -
F. Silvain -
Ivan K -
Joel Roth -
jonetsuï¼ teksavvy.com -
Karen Lewellen -
Len Ovens -
Raffaele Morelli -
Ralf Mardorf