thx, i'm new
Why not Linux?
I guess that depends on how broadly you define "nearly". Depends on the machine you use to run it, too - if you're choosing a laptop to run linux, or putting together a Linux desktop box, of course you should first check out that the components have feasible support in Linux.radib wrote:linux is awfull on nearly every not-administration issue. all you can do with it is finding and solving new problems. waste of time.
Having used Linux many years, mostly on sufficiently compatible laptops, for coding and various other more geeky aspects of computing
, I must say I have been pleased. Great many of the "all you can do with it is finding and solving new problems" comments boil down to incompatible setups. That is, setups which run Windows just fine, and so the user is supposing that Linux should naturally work on that hardware just the same.Nokatus wrote:radib wrote: Having used Linux many years, mostly on sufficiently compatible laptops, for coding and various other more geeky aspects of computing
no, not only hardware issues. also stuff like problems with library, different programs often require different versions of sth and sorts. and ok for oldschool c programming its a good environment, but to be honest there one goes even better with other unix.
-
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
Re: Why not Linux?
raapie wrote:I am planning a switch to Linux.
Will Live ever be ported to Linux? If not, why?
the question would be, which distro to support, and which verison
of the kernel and what hardware config..
even the pro linux apps out there are like that...
they support ONE distro with ONE hardware config, because
making it work on every flavour of linux with all kinds of strange
hardware configs would be a nightmare.
we still have to use old versions of redhat with old old graphics drivers
for some of the "pro industry" software that we are using.
why? IT WON'T WORK ON THE NEW HOTNESS
keep dreaming.
and get a mac.
it's linux, only better.
omg. ubuntu studio was running and i even got my interface working, but all audio applications are a bad joke compared to those i use with windows. and after short time of usage there are so many little problems hacking the flow, and there are no problems for some of them in the whole cute ubuntu village yet so you´d have to program it yourself. no, i got better to do with my time.Martyn wrote: Anybody incapable of installing and running ubuntu is simply a complete idiot, mind you, you seem to be incapable of figuring out how to quote properly on a forum too, so that just about confirms it.
-
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
-
bigbadotis
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:31 pm
- Location: rochester, ny
- Contact:
Depending on your hardware configuration, this is simply not true, and I think it does a disservice to the Linux community to make comments like this.Martyn wrote: Anybody incapable of installing and running ubuntu is simply a complete idiot, mind you, you seem to be incapable of figuring out how to quote properly on a forum too, so that just about confirms it. :lol:
That said, I would love to have Live on Linux.
good point , unfortunately my echo indigo card was supposed to be supported out of the box in ubuntu studio, hence the echomixer in the applications, but it just doesnt recognise the card. I love linux but its simply not an option for audio, it slows down the creative process and the programs just aren't up to scratch (yet) give it another 10 years and then maybe we'll see a big change. but for the moment i'd stick with windows for music making, mainly because of the almost limitless free synths and plugins out there. awesomeMartyn wrote:Well, yes some hardware isn't supported for the same reasons that a lot of software isn't supported, and that basically means that you need to buy the correct hardware. Hardware that IS supported is running brilliantly, it's a little unfair to assume that a whole OS is "no good for audio" simply because you have a soundcard with no available driver. It's a problem for sure but it's not Linux's fault.
RME cards appear to be the best bet at the moment, my Terratec runs great too. There's just no audio software I want to bother with yet, and I think that's a real shame.
It's good that Adobe are acknowleging it with Flex though, one can only hope.
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
you're wrong and you're a grotesquely ugly malformed freakradib wrote:linux is awfull on nearly every not-administration issue. all you can do with it is finding new problems and try to solve them. did it 1998/1999 for a longer period, last months installed ubuntu studio. all crap.
waste of time.
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
See, my experience is more like this:Emissary wrote:I love linux but its simply not an option for audio
1) Download ISO
2) Burn ISO
3) Boot from ISO
4) apt-get install ardour
5) Record
.. that's with a PC I picked up on the street... stick a soundblaster in there and laugh. Really, easy as pies.
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
..
thanks for the comments. real useful!
if we sit on our asses, nothing will change. user demands, changes things.
and professional soundcard support could be better. but hardware companies are the ones to 'blaim'.
if we sit on our asses, nothing will change. user demands, changes things.
and professional soundcard support could be better. but hardware companies are the ones to 'blaim'.
Emissary wrote: good point , unfortunately my echo indigo card was supposed to be supported out of the box in ubuntu studio
no, this card works after you make a few extra installations (don´t remember exactly which it were). but then again again there are problems with the timing/pitch.
-
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
the installation of ubuntu is easy as pie and its a great system, but cmon you cant honestly say that audio stuff is better on Linux than windows, be true to your heart. the computer I'm on at the moment has a soundblaster card and it works great. Thats the thing with linux, if stuff works it works really well, if its doesnt then its a week of frustration trying to get stuff to worknoisetonepause wrote:See, my experience is more like this:Emissary wrote:I love linux but its simply not an option for audio
1) Download ISO
2) Burn ISO
3) Boot from ISO
4) apt-get install ardour
5) Record
.. that's with a PC I picked up on the street... stick a soundblaster in there and laugh. Really, easy as pies.
please inform me what these installation were? as not one person on any help site i have been to has got this card working, bar 1 guy who had to recompile the kernel. also there are problems with the timing and pitch?radib wrote:Emissary wrote: good point , unfortunately my echo indigo card was supposed to be supported out of the box in ubuntu studio
no, this card works after you make a few extra installations (don´t remember exactly which it were). but then again again there are problems with the timing/pitch.
so lets face it windoze is easier isnt it, and rules for audio
oh and you smell like an old mans nappy if you dont tell me how to get my card working
