YALS-e17 0.5.0

[wolftune]

When you talk about the 3.7 kernel being better and reducing xruns, two questions: 1. have you seen this on more than one system so it isn't as likely system specific? 2. which kernel are you comparing to? Are you talking about the difference of 3.2 to 3.7 and not knowing where along the lines the improvements came or comparing 3.6 to 3.7?

[i2productions]

When you talk about the 3.7 kernel being better and reducing xruns, two questions: 1. have you seen this on more than one system so it isn't as likely system specific? 2. which kernel are you comparing to? Are you talking about the difference of 3.2 to 3.7 and not knowing where along the lines the improvements came or comparing 3.6 to 3.7?

I know something happened between 3.2 and 3.6. But you are correct, I do not know when, or what specific improvements were made. All I know is it produces an extremely stable live system. It's the first time I've felt like I could do real work on a kxstudio live media, without crashes and xruns. Now obviously if you drive your buffer too low for your hardware, you're going to get xruns. It's not a cure all pill, and it does seems to eat up more RAM than 3.2 based systems I've been building. But the trade-offs seem good enough to warrant the overhead. If it takes a system that ran in 128 megs of RAM in 3.2, it runs in 150-160megs now. Those are my initial observations in building on both virtualbox systems and real partitions.

have you seen this on more than one system so it isn't as likely system specific?

Yes. A high powered quad-core i7 desktop, and a low power single-core 1.4 Ghz netbook. I just built it last night though, so more testing is definitely waranted. I have included conky in the distro so you can see how much system resources are eaten up. Report back. The more people that try and give opinions, the quicker this projects can move forward. I've provided mostly stable blank canvases for audio work. I'll let the community decide how the final customizations shake down. I have also tested on multiple interfaces. Let me tell you a story. I bought a PreSonus Firestudio mobile 2 years ago used(mint condition) for $125 at a pawn shop. I bought it with the intent on using it for linux, and no matter how hard I tried, and what different stacks of FFADO I used, the things was a $125 paperweight. The drivers in windows took me 2 days alone to configure. Just for fun and testing purposes to see how far the drivers had come since the last time I tested about 6 months ago, I hot plug it, went to Firewire driver in cadence, and nothing shows up. I select hw0 anyway and hit 'force restart' JACK. Would you believe it the blue firewire light on the front of this beautiful little firewire interface went solid and showed all 10 inputs and all 6 outputs in JACK without any further configuration. What's even sicker is I was able to start JACK on it as low as 32 frames! 64 was still the lowest stable I could go, but it's one more thing I have in my arsenal now! The real question is do I get 3 more dirt cheap and see if they stack like they do in windows for a total of 40 ins and 24 outs? Did I mention I did all this from a liveSDcard on the e17 desktop I was testing?! I'm one happy guy right now!

[brummer]

I see that I didn't come around to declare why I react so harsh.
Let me start with a short introduction about the "normal" relation ship between upstream and distribution.
Upstream produce source which get used by distribution to produce binary's which get hand out to users.
Any package get a distribution maintainer which is presented to receive bug reports. The distribution maintainer now takes the role to sort bug reports, there are reports which are related to the distribution, as well there are reports related to upstream.
If, and only if, a bug report is related to upstream, the package maintainer will send the report to upstream and ask for fix it.
With such a struct, upstream developers didn't waste there time with bug reports which are related to the distributed format of there work.
To give a hint, the last KXStudio ISO's include a guitarix build which is build with the wrong build flags, which lead to segfault on several CPU's. There is nothing I, as the upstream developer could do about this. Now, if I receive Bug reports about "guitarix segfault" I'm forced to sort them out, answer, . . . , in short, waste my time. Fortunately this is very well documented on the KXStudio Homepage, a fix for this is given by the distribution maintainer, so, in short, I didn't receive a single report about this, because the distribution maintainer keep a eye on it.
On the ISO before, there was a missing library which leads to "guitarix segfault", . . .

So, now you pushing out custom build iso's and seems to believe that is all a "distributor" have to do. You will leave all the work which follow to upstream and the maintainers of the KXStudio packages.
You believe that you help to promote Linux Audio, but you oversee how Linux usually work. With your behavior you disturb the relation between upstream and distribution, that's why I be pissed about your effort.

[i2productions]

In my welcome instructions I direct people HERE, and have the default webpage in the web brower here at linux musicians. How much more direct contact would you like me to put people into? If they have a question, it will be asked here and more than likely read by the appropriate parties. Calm down. It's really ok. Come back when you've tried it, and you've got some helpful constructive criticism.

[brummer]

I see you didn't understand, so, as a minimum of respect , please remove guitarix from your custom ISO.

[tux99]

I see you didn't understand, so, as a minimum of respect , please remove guitarix from your custom ISO.

Brummer, you are really getting ridiculous now, guitarix is GPLv2 therefore you have no right to ask that.
I really think you don't fully understand what FOSS means and how the GPL license works.

[i2productions]

I see you didn't understand, so, as a minimum of respect , please remove guitarix from your custom ISO.

You want me to remove one of the programs I brag to my windows friends about, out of my distro because you have some kind of chip on your shoulder. I really don't want to accept your request, but I will seriously consider it, though I'd like to hear for the further community on the issue. That's wierd, and a little fascist!

I'm not fighting to get on distrowatch, and other than distributing a few copies to offline friends the sole place it's existence is known HERE ON THIS FORUM! There is no fragmentation problem here. falkTX and I have been in contact, and everything is really ok.

[brummer]

Brummer, you are really getting ridiculous now, guitarix is GPLv2 therefore you have no right to ask that.
I really think you don't fully understand what FOSS means and how the GPL license works.

What is your problem tux99, I can ask what ever I like, please note the term "please". I ask for it, because I'm the developer of guitarix, I set it under the terms of the GPL. If i2 didn't remove it, there is nothing I can do, but, you want to restrict me to ask for it?
I have clearly declared my state here, everyone is free to do with it what ever he like, but comments like yours, quickly lead to
a restricted communication, so, tux99, you better think twice.

You want me to remove one of the programs I brag to my windows friends about, out of my distro because you have some kind of chip on your shoulder. I really don't want to accept your request, but I will seriously consider it, though I'd like to hear for the further community on the issue. That's wierd, and a little fascist!

The same goes for you here, you use terms like "claim down" and call me in the same a fascist?
Well, I see I only waste time here.

[tux99]

What is your problem tux99

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your last post, but the only one with a problem here seems to be you.

Live and let live, you do your thing and i2productions does his thing, why do you have to waste everybody's time by bitching about i2productions project?

[ssj71]

Not commenting on brummers request, but his concern is that there may be issues with the iso because of e17 or the packaging that have NOTHING to do with kxstudio, but users won't know that, and its difficult to divine that from a forum post, so FalkTX will spend lots of time chasing bugs that aren't his work. It is a valid concern. If i2 provides the necessary maintenance (which so far seems to be happening) and only reports back to falk the bugs that actually have to do with kxstudio then everything is fine. Thats why falk requested it be named something besides kxs which i2 kindly complied with. I think its a great time to sit back and watch this project develop.

[wolftune]

I see you didn't understand, so, as a minimum of respect , please remove guitarix from your custom ISO.

Brummer, you are really getting ridiculous now, guitarix is GPLv2 therefore you have no right to ask that.
I really think you don't fully understand what FOSS means and how the GPL license works.

tux99: This is what I wrote in my earlier post. Your comment here is completely off-base. Brummer could be, in your opinion, wrong to ask this. Brummer certainly does not have the authority or right to *force* that he request be honored. But he has complete rights to make his request!! Period! Your comment amounts to saying that I can only ask someone to do anything or only express my opinion if it matches what the law already says.

I ask everyone here to try to give one another the benefit-of-the-doubt but to also respect open communication and airing of complaints. And I am free to ask this even though I do not have the power to make everyone listen!

[wolftune]

So anyway, I can summarize all of this:

if i2productions takes ALL bug reports from anyone using his releases and makes absolutely absolutely sure that he has done everything he possibly can to address them before bothering anyone upstream but always sends upstream all appropriate bugs and feature requests and new things like documentation and settings and any improvements, then the upstream folks will be okay with this.

And the essence is that they are worried this won't come to fruition.

If i2productions doesn't want to guarantee this, then he should release all of these things with a big warning saying:

I do not support this necessarily, I do not encourage you to make it a main system, this is purely a test just my own experiments with some different setups, and I'm sharing my tests, but do not consider this functional. Perhaps in the future I will make a real supported release, but I don't quite know what I'm getting into. If you like my tests, try making your own or talk to falkTX about incorporating things you like from these; but these are only tests and do not treat them as reliable systems.

Etc. or some such thing.

Ok? Can everyone live with this? (not because it matches each of the parties' wishes, but because it is a proposed moderated compromise)

Cheers,
Aaron

[tux99]

Nobody has to do or promise anything, FOSS software is always released "AS IS", therefore any efforts are purely voluntary and certainly never guaranteed.

[i2productions]

if i2productions takes ALL bug reports from anyone using his releases and makes absolutely absolutely sure that he has done everything he possibly can to address them before bothering anyone upstream but always sends upstream all appropriate bugs and feature requests and new things like documentation and settings and any improvements...

That is my plan. The only help desk right now is here on this forum. Everything is there for everyone to see. The whole reason I didn't want to rename the project was so KXStudio would be the primary things people have in their head when looking for help with the tools.

Nobody has to do or promise anything, FOSS software is always released "AS IS", therefore any efforts are purely voluntary and certainly never guaranteed.

But I will do everything I can to make things run smoothly for users and developers alike. Rather than brummer going on a rant, maybe he'd realize that this is a project not advertised anywhere but this forum, and users only coming to this forum to ask for help. If there's a problem with guitarix for example it seems obvious, that while he's working on screaming about how I'm ruining the platform, he'll be checking here and see that someone has a problem with guitarix. So where's the perceived problem? falkTX has been nothing but supportive as long as I abide by a few simple requests. All this will do is make it easier for new users to try new things!

[wolftune]

Nobody has to do or promise anything, FOSS software is always released "AS IS", therefore any efforts are purely voluntary and certainly never guaranteed.

You aren't listening, and I can't force you to listen because you are right: nobody has to do things that are asked of them. That doesn't mean the requests can't be asked! And it doesn't matter that legally the FLOSS licenses offer no liability. We're talking here about the practical reality of how to do our best to support things. It matters how things are presented and how communication goes, even when it has no legal ramifications.

My exaggerated summary:

i2productions: "hey everybody check this out! I was playing around and I think I can improve things! Everyone can share the tests I'm doing! I want the best for the Linux audio community!"

falkTX and brummer and others: "Please be more sensitive, it causes lots of hassle and problems if you just put out random new tests. It's better to coordinate with others and not just fork projects insensitively. I ask you to please not go ahead with your public projects, at least talk with us first."

tux99: "Shut up you guys. i2productions is free to do what he wants, you can't make him stop. If someone doesn't have to listen to other people's concerns, he shouldn't even consider listening, and anyone with concerns should shut up because they can't make anybody listen anyway."

wolftune: "hey guys, let's try to get along here. I think falkTX and brummer have really valid concerns. I also think i2productions is well-intentioned and maybe we can come to a respectful understanding. But tux99, you're off base and just being reactionary and not helping. How about we work on moderating this and come to an agreement about what's needed to address the concerns?"

tux99: "i2productions already has no liability and has freedom because of the GPL, so he doesn't legally have to accept any moderation or make any extra statements about his support intent or anything else, so you shouldn't even ask him to consider these things."

Of course, this isn't a tactful way of presenting things and getting you to see others views, but take it like this: I'm trying to express my frustration at your comments, and I hope you somehow have the grace to step back and check yourself. Although you have the freedom to keep being a nuisance instead. I know it's hard to swallow your ego.


---

now to i2productions: I think you're being fair, but try to see brummer's point of view, just so it is easier to work out a respectful understanding. Chalk it up to communication that could use improvement, and it's a learning process for all. We will do best if we learn to get along and to be really respectful of the concerns of others. If you really show brummer that you patiently and thoughtful appreciate and respect his concerns, then he is more likely to give you the same respect in return.

Cheers