Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"...

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Renato <rennabh@...>
Cc: Kim Cascone <kim@...>, <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Friday, March 4, 2011 - 7:28 pm

--bcaec51d224edb25ef049dad25f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Renato wrote:

>

This really depends.

This is related to another phenomenon I see pop up often when newcomers
switch to Linux, and that is the desire to stay on the bleeding edge to get
the newest features. The problem is this doesn't fit into the, if it ain't
broke don't fix it philosophy, and what would be common sense thoughts(Don't
update your studio computer without testing first) get thrown out the
window. I haven't quite put my finger on why exactly this happens, but
believe it or not, I tihnk the perception of the lack of release cycles
plays into this.

I have been a strong proponent of Ardour adopting a binary distribution
independant package format, which has been done. There are a variety of
benefits to this(And some disadvantages for the record), but one thing I
didn't think of until now is how that could affect perceptions and release
cycles. I think many people get confused by the lack of a true release
cycle for much of open source development, and as a result assume they need
to update as soon as possible. A binary distribution can encourage a more
stable release cycle instead I think(At least at my first thought, which
means it may change in a day or two;). As a result it might help with
people that switch to Linux not to fall into the trap to assume you always
have to update to the newest version as soon as possible instead of waiting
for it to be packaged into a 'release'.

At any rate, this is enough rambling on that topic from me, my point being
that you are absolutely correct, that often times you don't HAVE to update
or tweak your OS much. When you do update is when things tend to break, and
because of this perception you have to stay up to date it means a not
insignificant amount of time fooling with the OS when something breaks, as
it always does eventually.

Seablade

--bcaec51d224edb25ef049dad25f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Renato <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><rennabh@gmail.com=
> wrote:

I totally agree with that (and thus I partially drop what I was
stating in the mail you replied to), but as I'm asking in other terms i=
n
my email in reply to Kim, how much time does one really spend, on
average, tweaking a linux OS for being it ready for audio work? I
really don't think that much as myths want. And again, that time
invested is IMO the unavoidable trade off for using open source
software which you don't pay for
This really depends.<=
br>This is related to another phenomenon I see pop up often when=
newcomers switch to Linux, and that is the desire to stay on the bleeding =
edge to get the newest features. =A0The problem is this doesn't fit int=
o the, if it ain't broke don't fix it philosophy, and what would be=
common sense thoughts(Don't update your studio computer without testin=
g first) get thrown out the window. =A0I haven't quite put my finger on=
why exactly this happens, but believe it or not, I tihnk the perception of=
the lack of release cycles plays into this.
I have been a strong proponent of Ardour adopting a bin=
ary distribution independant package format, which has been done. =A0There =
are a variety of benefits to this(And some disadvantages for the record), b=
ut one thing I didn't think of until now is how that could affect perce=
ptions and release cycles. =A0I think many people get confused by the lack =
of a true release cycle for much of open source development, and as a resul=
t assume they need to update as soon as possible. =A0A binary distribution =
can encourage a more stable release cycle instead I think(At least at my fi=
rst thought, which means it may change in a day or two;). =A0As a result it=
might help with people that switch to Linux not to fall into the trap to a=
ssume you always have to update to the newest version as soon as possible i=
nstead of waiting for it to be packaged into a 'release'.
At any rate, this is enough rambling on that topic from=
me, my point being that you are absolutely correct, that often times you d=
on't HAVE to update or tweak your OS much. =A0When you do update is whe=
n things tend to break, and because of this perception you have to stay up =
to date it means a not insignificant amount of time fooling with the OS whe=
n something breaks, as it always does eventually.
=A0 =A0 =A0Seablade

--bcaec51d224edb25ef049dad25f2--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 4:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Andrew C, (Fri Mar 4, 5:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 5:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 6:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 6:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 7:00 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 7:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., david, (Sat Mar 5, 6:06 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 2:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 5:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Joe Hartley, (Sat Mar 5, 6:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 7:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 6:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 5:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 5:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 6:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 6:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 7:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 6:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Mar 5, 6:55 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Sat Mar 5, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., rosea.grammostola, (Sat Mar 5, 3:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Robin Gareus, (Sat Mar 5, 2:00 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 7:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:10 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 6:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 7:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Mar 4, 7:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Renato, (Fri Mar 4, 7:06 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Robin Gareus, (Sat Mar 5, 1:58 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Robin Gareus, (Sat Mar 5, 2:14 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 8:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., david, (Sat Mar 5, 6:13 am)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., david, (Fri Mar 4, 7:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:49 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Alexandre Prokoudine, (Fri Mar 4, 9:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., Kim Cascone, (Fri Mar 4, 6:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Laid to rest is Pro Tools LE"..., S C Rigler, (Fri Mar 4, 4:46 pm)