LinuxMusicians

l0wt3ch wrote:my product

heheh.

karm wrote:

l0wt3ch wrote:my product

heheh.

l0wt3ch wrote:As for how I represent myself, it's unfortunate that I have to get into these silly arguments every time I try to make claims about my product.

That's the problem right there. We, the community have to take the word of a guy who seems to have a primal need to be right and be the best, that his distro full of free software is worth purchasing only on his word. You have NO INDEPENDENT REVIEW!! All of these other distros do. So forgive us for not taking your word at face value after saying things like

l0wt3ch wrote: But I do see all of you as quite comical!

I really, really want to verify your claims. Since no one on here is going to buy this without some kind of real independent review, why do you keep bothering? At the very least I am likely to save face for the other distros you "tested" which is my real goal. I really don't care which comes out on top. Even with my bias for KXStudio, in benchmarking, I'm going to make the bold prediction that AV Linux 6 will come out on top of most tests. If your distro was as good as you say, you would submit it for a REAL comparison.

Back to the business at hand.

raboof wrote:I don't care much about boot and start up times

I do care about latency (both from internal and external sources), xruns and stability.

It would be cool if the tests would be as reproducable as possible, and if it would be easy re-run the tests with new/tweaked versions of the distro's, so we can find out what causes the differences (kernel version? kernel configuration? userspace versions? userspace configuration? etc) and work on making all the distro's equally awesome.

Couldn't agree more. The boot and startup times are only for comparison with the "other video". It's all about latency, stability, and xruns!

i2productions wrote:Couldn't agree more. The boot and startup times are only for comparison with the "other video". It's all about latency, stability, and xruns!

Why waste time on comparing with "the other video"? Such things should be ignored.

Also though, to the uninformed windows potential convert, boot times can be a factor in choice. I do agree it's almost totally irrelivant, but I'm going to have a video clock anyway, so the data will be there either way, might as well post it, just won't make it a very big part of the comparison.

Starting to wonder if this project is even worth it. I have spoken with the makers of several of these distros, and have gotten the impression that they would rather not see any kind of comparisons right now. They feel that no matter who has the best product this is just a distraction. So, even though this is an independent endeavor, I may just let this one go. For that matter a moderator can feel free to remove this thread.

ok, so let's just make a pack and ignore "him"
I mean, no responses to any of his post or threads

Capoeira wrote:ok, so let's just make a pack and ignore "him"
I mean, no responses to any of his post or threads

Already put on ignore, I'm done wasting time with this.

Studio 13.37 is apparently based on slackware, which like arch, is noted for lean overhead. Slackware launches/loads a minimal number of daemons and background processes, and sticks closely to upstream code and traditional configuration. Ubuntu does exactly the opposite, and those other distros appear to be Ubuntu-based. Whether it be some upstart script fighting with a udev rule over control of your hardware, some background daemon sucking up ram and CPU time doing a "busy-wait", or any of the lovely "we know what's good for you" canonical hacks inflicted upon endusers, Ubuntu is a distro that is never going to best any other distro in terms of runtime performance. Ubuntu is designed for a different use case -- namely to appeal to non-technical windows users who do things like surf the internet or use a word processor. Want to noticeably speed up your (ubuntu-running) computer with minimal functional changes? Just install Debian Testing. Seriously.

If someone has hopes of showing an ubuntu-based distro favorably fairing against another distro base, the last criteria you want to focus on is runtime performance (or stability). You'd have to deliberately hobble the competition with the most oppressive bloatware you can find. At all costs, avoid comparing to an arch, slackware, or gentoo system; especially one tuned for speed.

The only thing ubuntu does faster than any other distro is to retrieve Amazon's current price for Windows 8.

falkTX wrote: The only major thing (for me) regarding ubuntu is the apt-daemon that checks for updates at regular intervals (thus using network and disk resources intensively for a few seconds), but that's also in Debian too anyway.

In debian/sid aka unstable, you have to activate it, if you wish it running.

j_e_f_f_g wrote: and those other distros appear to be Ubuntu-based.

ubuntu itself is based on debian,
AVLinux is plain debian

karm wrote:

l0wt3ch wrote:my product

heheh.

You know that thousands have been spent on manufacturing, web hosting, and advertising, right? Real money, the kind that you can buy things with. It' s not just talk, I put my money where my mouth is.

i2productions wrote:Even with my bias for KXStudio, in benchmarking, I'm going to make the bold prediction that AV Linux 6 will come out on top of most tests.

Why, just because it came out on top of most of the tests (second to Studio 13.37) in my video? And I even said so? Brilliant deduction, Mr. Holmes.

i2productions wrote:Starting to wonder if this project is even worth it. I have spoken with the makers of several of these distros, and have gotten the impression that they would rather not see any kind of comparisons right now.

LOL! I bet they don't!

l0wt3ch wrote:Sometimes I think the "Linux community" is about as "enlightened" as a bag of hungry rats.

Thank goodness for the rest of the time, eh ?

For the record, I've never considered myself enlightened. Closer to burnt out.

Best,

dp

j_e_f_f_g wrote:Studio 13.37 is apparently based on slackware, which like arch, is noted for lean overhead. Slackware launches/loads a minimal number of daemons and background processes, and sticks closely to upstream code and traditional configuration. Ubuntu does exactly the opposite, and those other distros appear to be Ubuntu-based. Whether it be some upstart script fighting with a udev rule over control of your hardware, some background daemon sucking up ram and CPU time doing a "busy-wait", or any of the lovely "we know what's good for you" canonical hacks inflicted upon endusers, Ubuntu is a distro that is never going to best any other distro in terms of runtime performance. Ubuntu is designed for a different use case -- namely to appeal to non-technical windows users who do things like surf the internet or use a word processor. Want to noticeably speed up your (ubuntu-running) computer with minimal functional changes? Just install Debian Testing. Seriously.

If someone has hopes of showing an ubuntu-based distro favorably fairing against another distro base, the last criteria you want to focus on is runtime performance (or stability). You'd have to deliberately hobble the competition with the most oppressive bloatware you can find. At all costs, avoid comparing to an arch, slackware, or gentoo system; especially one tuned for speed.

The only thing ubuntu does faster than any other distro is to retrieve Amazon's current price for Windows 8.

Thank you j_e_f_f_g, finally an intelligent comment. Linux can be taken and adapted for all sorts of applications, from servers to embedded systems, and, when applied in such a way, be the smallest, fastest, and best-suited OS for that purpose.

You guys like how Ubuntu has now been classified as spyware by Richard Stallman? I'm sure Ubuntu phoning home and telling Amazon every time you do a system search for a file is great for lowering your audio latencies. How does it feel to have been sold out?

falkTX wrote:Ubuntu does have a few things set-up for the user automatically, but that's usually a good thing.

If you surf the internet or use a word processor, or for example you have a bluetooth device (canonical is really into following in apple's footsteps, so if you want a linux that tries to be iOS...) then ubuntu is setup for you.

If you want something else, then there are much better choices. Because canonical makes so many changes to upstream, uses proprietary, convoluted means to configure the system such as upstart scripts, and tries to "hide" details of setup from endusers (ie regards endusers like apple does), customizing ubuntu (beyond adding/removing packages) is a nightmare. Here's a perfect example: I recently was asked by an enduser to help him automatically setup the file permissions for a usb device. The "proper" way to do this is with a udev rule file, so I wrote a udev rule to do so. It works as expected on non-ubuntu systems, but fails on ubuntu systems (most likely to due to some undocumented conflict with an upstart script, or an unnecessary or badly configured daemon). Not only don't I know what the problem is (as a person who already came up with a working solution elsewhere), but it appears that even the folks involved in the distro don't know the solution. Customization is a nightmare given scenarios like this (and it was situations like this, such as upstart breaking the Midisport firmware loader, that made me flee ubuntu for debian. Glad I did though, because my system is easier to customize, as well as being faster just by swapping out ubuntu for debian).

If ubuntu works for you out of the box, or via adding/removing software in ubuntu's repositories using its package manner, then it's fine. But I would never recommend it to anyone who plans to do any system tweaking/customizations, especially in search of increased runtime performance and stability. There are other distros that make the latter goal easier to achieve than ubuntu does (if a given customization can be gotten to work on ubuntu at all).

brummer wrote:ubuntu itself is based on debian

Well, at this point ubuntu is really a fork. Canonical has made too many intrusive changes such that ubuntu now has its own debian-incompatible repositories. And a lot of those changes aren't being accepted back into debian. This has been the case for several years now, and largely accounts for why Debian testing has demonstrably different runtime performance. I recommend folks not assume debian will perform the same as ubuntu. I've found debian to be faster, easier to customize, and more stable/predictable.

brummer wrote:AVLinux is plain debian

That explains why AVLinux was demonstrably faster and more efficient than the other 3 (ubuntu-based) distros. I was wondering what was "wrong" with it. It didn't seem to be giving the sloth-like performance I expect from ubuntu. (And that was the one thing that made me suspicious that video may have used a bad methodology. I suspect you may be unhappy that you cleared up my misgivings).

Now what we need is a debian based distro with Enlightenment, compiled for wayland, running a DAW that uses the E libraries. Oh, and not from Canonical.