We need a Linux Music Standard

What other apps and distros do you use to round out your studio?

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

alex stone
Established Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:39 am
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by alex stone »

khz wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:38 pm Actually, you only need BackupBand in the cloud, not even a GNU or even the Linux. ;-)
But that would mean we wouldn't use Jack, by order of the Dev.

There would be no point in using a computer at all.
:shock:
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

merlyn wrote: What problem would (ease of use) solve?
Let's see. What problem would be solved if endusers could download binaries (instead of compiling code) tested and known to work on a standardized, minimal base system for music?

I don't know. Maybe most of them?

Are you guys just taking the piss here, or does this really need explaining?
point of Linux is that you can choose the OS with the features that you like
I've done that for some of my systems. But that's moot to the issue of wanting a minimal base standard for music development/deployment. Think of it as a music-focused addendum to the LSB. It just happens that AV Linux is the closest to that goal. I have no problem with some other entity stepping forward and doing the work. I just want working results, and I want them as soon as possible. Right now, I see universal binary support for AV Linux as the quickest means to the end.

Of course, appimage files, while not my preferred choice, at least nudge the ball forward. I'm finally able to use newer versions of Muse and QTractor in lieu of the ancient relics found in my distro's repository, just because there are appimage binaries. But, I'd prefer my preceding solution.

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

User avatar
funkmuscle
Established Member
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by funkmuscle »

Too many distros and I would head back to Windows before touching Ubuntu.

I am not sure how building an app from source differs from binaries but I like that Ardour is available that way as it should run on any flavour of Linux..

Again I could be wrong and please correct me. So if all apps were released that way, wouldn't that solve the 1 billion versions of Linux issues?

Like I'm beyond happy with Arch and hated anything Deb especially Ubuntu. Many folks have a distro they love or alternatives of that distro so getting one to use a distro made just for pro audio takes that freedom of choice away..

Maybe a repo where every dev releases their project in a binary format so we all just go to that well and drink, so to speak..
merlyn
Established Member
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by merlyn »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:17 pm Are you guys just taking the piss here, or does this really need explaining?
A bit of both. But yes, you will have to explain. You haven't clearly stated the problem. If the problem is that you're too brain damaged to use a compiler, that's more of a jeff problem than a Linux problem. :D
Natelok
Established Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:18 pm
Location: Donnybrook Western Australia
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by Natelok »

You'll get my qjackctl when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Nate!

Music Nerd, Guitarist, Fixer of Things, DJ, currently employed by Donnybrook Balingup Community Radio (Station Manager & Drive Time DJ, Recording Engineer for a small attached studio for local artists)

DAW: Mixbus at home, Mixbus32C at work
User avatar
GMaq
Established Member
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:42 pm
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 555 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by GMaq »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:17 pm Of course, appimage files, while not my preferred choice, at least nudge the ball forward. I'm finally able to use newer versions of Muse and QTractor in lieu of the ancient relics found in my distro's repository, just because there are appimage binaries. But, I'd prefer my preceding solution.
If your Distro is AV Linux then both MuSE and Qtractor are at the very latest versions if you use the MX Package Installer and install from the 'MX Test' Repo tab...

I personally have kind of given up on keeping up with Plugins, between completely new Plugins and updates to existing Plugins a team of 10 people couldn't keep up with it even if a grizzly bear was chasing them.. Like our Windows and OSX brethren all Linux Plugin developers should provide ready to use binaries and they should be compiled on a one-version old Debian Stable or Ubuntu-LTS (because they are popular, stable and have mature support libraries not because they are 'Debian') to ensure compatibility across the board and prevent the often and needless building against versions of libc6 that are too new.. So many people have thrown away a perfectly functional and mature existing system because some guy decides to port their shiny new Plugins to Linux and installs the latest non-LTS version of Ubuntu or Arch and uses a libc6 version that doesn't work with 70% of their potential User base. I remember meeting the developers of Drumgizmo at LAC 2014 and they had a special VM with a years old version of CentOS that they used to build their Plugins... they worked everywhere because the User base all had a more than adequate libc6 version... THAT is how things are done properly!

I do what I can with the time and abilities I have but I don't think I'm the torch bearer for the Linux Standard Music OS... in the meantime I've seen a LOT of things come and go..
tseaver
Established Member
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:07 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 95 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by tseaver »

From the perspective of somebody who has been using, making, distributing, and supporting FLOSS software for the past 25 years (but almost none of it AV-specific), the barrier for the developer to using a separate distro for building / testing is pretty high: high enough that the projects which do build their own widely-distributed binaries (versus having them packaged by a distro like Debian/RH/whatever), have tended to adopt one of a couple of strategies:
  • Build the binaries "in the cloud," using some version of CI (CircleCI, Travis, Github Actions, etc.). This solution is especially attractive if the same develpers need to build and distribute binaries for Windows / OSX, because the CI host can manage keeping those environments running and stable way better than developers typically can on their own machines.
  • Build the binaries using a waaaay-old, "stable" set of libraries (circa 2014 in today's world). For Linux-only, or Linux-as-an-afterthought projects, this strategy is attractive, especially with tooling support. Python, for instance, has a 'manylinux' standard[1] which provides Docker images which can do the build (using the much older library versions), without requiring a reboot-to-the-separate-partition dance that Jeff seemed to be suggesting. Note that some of the CI integrations I've used under the first scenario rely on the second strategy as well.
[1] https://github.com/pypa/manylinux
Ubuntu, Mixbus32C; acoustic blues / country / jazz
Robin Cherry
Established Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:18 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by Robin Cherry »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:17 pm
point of Linux is that you can choose the OS with the features that you like
I've done that for some of my systems. But that's moot to the issue of wanting a minimal base standard for music development/deployment. Think of it as a music-focused addendum to the LSB. It just happens that AV Linux is the closest to that goal. I have no problem with some other entity stepping forward and doing the work. I just want working results, and I want them as soon as possible. Right now, I see universal binary support for AV Linux as the quickest means to the end.

Of course, appimage files, while not my preferred choice, at least nudge the ball forward. I'm finally able to use newer versions of Muse and QTractor in lieu of the ancient relics found in my distro's repository, just because there are appimage binaries. But, I'd prefer my preceding solution.
That's exactly it. It is a moot point for you. It isn't for me. When a developer releases a new version of their plugin that uses a version of glibc newer than what is provided in avlinux I want to be able to use it. You might not care but I do. I want to run the newest kernels and the newest versions of yabridge, etc. It's part of my workflow. Building everything to work with one OS wouldn't work for me and it shouldn't be the norm. I don't find it hard to setup or maintain my Manjaro system and what's more it's getting much easier all the time. Furthermore, as a rolling release I haven't needed to reinstall in years and am still up to date. The base kernal has preempt built in as well. I think Avlinux is a fantastic OS. I used it for years. It isn't right for me at this time though. This sounds like a you problem.
User avatar
erlkönig
Established Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 8:58 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by erlkönig »

By using AV Linux, setting up a music system will be as easy for endusers as any other OS.
What makes it easier, in comparisson to Manjaro, Debian, etc? e.g. on Manjaro, i install let's say ardour and jack and it's running.
People having problems with other distros will be able to quickly identify whether a problem is software or hardware related just by running their system under an AV linux live boot distro.
I don't understand why this should be easier
Endusers will be spared the horrible, unnecessary experience of compiling software
On Manjaro for example, this works flawlessly. I guess on arch, too, probably also on gentoo (but Manjaro is the point because it's targeted to common users who simply want to have a running system).
Conflicts between apps can be better resolved when developers are testing all apps using a standardized music base.
Not better than on other distros, i think. How will this be reached?
Less time will be wasted on trouble-shooting and enduser technical support.
I know a few musicians to falsify that point, layer 8 is everywhere...
By having developers create the AV linux binaries of their software, this frees up Glen to concentrate on documentation and advancement of the base system. In fact, perhaps he can work on a "music app-store" type of program in which devs send him download links to their binaries, and he adds those to the "app-store".
I guess, Glen is the maintainer behind AVLinux? Maybe you should have a look on organization on slackware linux: that's a one man show by Pat Volkerding. There are a few people around him, but in the end, he's the guy behind it. It's a full time job to maintain a distro with professional requirements. It rises and falls with illnesses, income and a lot of things around, that have nothing to do with the distro itself.
The only applicable influence of human nature here is that people tend to like things that are easy and effective.
Right, but that's a personal thing: for that reason, i prefer Slackware over e.g. Mint or Debian. Other people do vice versa.
What problem would that solve?
That's the right question. All the great and stable Software we have under free licences initially solved a problem and was adopted by other people with the same or a similar problem and then evolved.

I don't find it a bad idea to have a distro specified on Audio(/VIdeo), but one of the key points to use linux is to get a system that fits to your personal requirements. Today, it's much simpler to have a running pro-grade audio-linux than it was 10 or 15 years ago. You don't have to patch kernels anymore for realtime capability (you even don't need an rt-kernel now...), you get ready to use kernels that you simply install among with the software you need to work with.
To propose a specialized distro as a standard means having a lot of human resources - and acceptance by users.
edit: typo

Currently working with
https://www.honeysuckers.rocks/?lang=en
https://de-de.facebook.com/SatanicVoices2019
Fiddling with sequencers does not evolve into music necessarily and Mac users have smelly feet and guzzle little children.

Basslint
Established Member
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:25 pm
Location: Italy
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 298 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by Basslint »

If you are going to do this, it's best to sell computers with AVLinux preinstalled. GNU/Linux power users probably can do music on any distro, so I feel they are not the ideal target for this approach. The ideal target is musicians who aren't *NIX hackers, IMHO.
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. [Acts 4:32]

Please donate time (even bug reports) or money to libre software 🎁

Jam on openSUSE + GeekosDAW!
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

Robin Cherry wrote: I want to be able to use (the newest kernel, libc, etc)
Well alright. You don't have much choice but to compile the software from sources. And you would still have that option even if music developers also adopt a particular distro as a minimal base standard for testing/deploying their binaries.

But developers should not expect endusers to compile software just for the sake of obtaining a binary to run on a music distro like AV Linux. And devs can no longer expect distro maintainers to keep their repositories uptodate, especially when it comes to niche software like music production apps. There's just too many linux apps out there, with too many dependencies. Even Debian, with its unrivaled number of contributors, can't keep major music apps uptodate. Debian's versions of Muse, QTractor, and Ardour are prehistoric, for example. And that's not just stable either.

Bottom line: Linux music developers need to make available binaries of their software if they want endusers to use that software.

There's no getting around it.

There are a couple options. Snaps/Flatpacks/AppImage/Docker, or adoption of a minimum base standard for music (binary) testing/deployment.

I prefer the latter (although right now, I'm working with AppImage versions of QTractor and Muse).
Building everything to work with one OS
No. The apps, compiled from sources, should work for any distro. "Everything" is not being limited to "one OS". Only the binary would be tested/deployed to a base standard.
GMaq wrote: new Plugins and updates to existing Plugins a team of 10 people couldn't keep up with it even if a grizzly bear was chasing them
Exactly. It's not realistic to expect otherwise.

And that's why devs can no longer expect distro maintainers to take responsibility for creating binaries. You've let down endusers if your answer to the question "Where can I get an binary of your app?" is It should be in your distro's repository..
Plugin developers should provide ready to use binaries and they should be compiled on a one-version old Debian Stable or Ubuntu-LTS
This is pretty much what I do in providing folks with a downloadable binary of BackupBand (in lieu of doing something like AppImage or Snap). It seems to work. But, I'd feel more confident if there was a "minimal base standard" for music app (binary) testing/deployment.
tseaver wrote:a reboot-to-the-separate-partition dance that Jeff seemed to be suggesting
To be clear, I'm not suggesting rebooting after each line of code you write. I'm suggesting either "Do all your music app development on a copy of AV Linux" or "When it comes time to make your finished app available to the public, boot to AV Linux, make a binary of your app, test it, and then release it".

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

tramp
Established Member
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:13 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by tramp »

For most of my plugs/apps I provide binary's build against ubuntu 20.4 using github actions. That require only setup a github workflow once to rebuild the binary on any push. So they will be up to date at any time. They are known to work flawless on arch as well as on debian stable / testing and sid.
On the road again.
Robin Cherry
Established Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:18 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by Robin Cherry »

Manjaro provides binaries for almost everything. Most of which are in the main repositories. The few things that aren't are mostly plugins from developers like uhe. These developers provide install methods for their apps that work well. The few that don't need their files placed manually. It's not difficult. I'm not compiling software from source ever.
Gps
Established Member
Posts: 1116
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:09 pm
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by Gps »

This some what reminds me of something Richard Stallman once said.

Steam coming to Linux could be a good thing in forcing distro's to follow standards.

I am on openSUSE ( tumbleweed) and for reasons I don't understand they keep updating LMMS, even when there is no LMMS update.
They seem to recompile LMMS everytime one of the LMMS used libs is updated.

They now have updated LMMS to a point were it no longer works.

Thank god LMMS has an appimage version..........

I might be switching to geekos os though. A music production repository for openSUSE.
Then I maybe also will have a fully working Carla.

I lost count on how many times I reported issues with LMMS to openSUSE. (most of the time wine related)

I love Linux, but I fear for it to be become really mainstream, stuff like this needs fixing.

I am however also a gamer, and because of this, I am very reluctant to install a music specific distro.

( sometimes I wonder why I don't just run fruity loops, albeton or cubase on windows.... :( )
merlyn
Established Member
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: We need a Linux Music Standard

Post by merlyn »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:57 am ... (although right now, I'm working with AppImage versions of QTractor and Muse).
You've blown any cred you might have had with me. I find that idea -- Snap, AppImage, Flatpak truly horrible. I prefer the idea of using a package manager and the system libraries.

You are presenting an argument logically. I don't agree with the conclusions, so it must be your assumptions that are wonky.

Upgrades are a computer issue, independent of OS. There is a tension between having a stable sytem and having an up-to-date system. One approach is the Debian approach of never updating anything if it can be avoided, and the opposite approach is the Arch approach of updating everything as soon as it comes out.

Reading between the lines then, the problem you are having seems to be with Debian. There are a few posts in this thread recommending Arch or Manjaro -- rolling releases that are always up to date.
Post Reply