Move KXStudio to ArchLinux?

[tux99]

What about Mageia?

It's very up-to-date, user friendly, has become quite popular (far more than Arch, Mageia is nr.2 on distrowatch, right behind Mint), it's derived from Mandriva (which has a long history as user friendly desktop distro) comes already with most audio/music app packages in the main repository, comes with KDE and is a community distro so no commercial interests like with Ubuntu. Mageia 3 will be out soon and could make an ideal base for KXStudio.

Also since it's a community distro FalkTX could directly collaborate as packager for the official repository, no need to run a separate repository anymore.

[autostatic]

I think someone like you will easily pick up packaging RPM's. I've done some RPM packaging years ago and it was quite easy. Instead of a rules file you have a spec file. That's in a nutshell the biggest difference between the two. But then I'd choose Fedora and not Mandrake.

[tux99]

Mageia is a totally differnt beast that I'm not used to, just like Fedora with RPMs.
I know how to handle Debian and ArchLinux (Pacman) systems, but other than these 2 I would have to first learn a lot about how they work internally...

Actually apart from the different package format (RPM) the differences aren't big, most if not all Linux distros all use the same libraries and system infrastructure (udev, dbus, systemd ...) and same or very similar file system layout (thanks to the LSB standard).

RPM is actually a lot easier and more intuitive than the deb format from a packager point of view, I'm sure you would learn it in no time at all, RPM uses a single config file for each package (called the spec-file) and the syntax is very intuitive, to see what I mean have a look at my libopus spec-file (this is for Centos but it would be almost identical for Mageia):
http://pkgrepo.linuxtech.net/el6/releas ... bopus.spec

[tux99]

But then I'd choose Fedora and not Mandrake.

Fedora is essentially the beta testing distro for Redhat Enterprise Linux. It's often quite unstable and experimental (look at the current Fedora 18 which is a major mess, with many completely unfinished parts like the new installer).

Also Mageia is not Mandrake, Mageia was born as a fork of Mandrake/Mandriva but is completely independent and purely a community distro with no commercial interests behind it (unlike Fedora and Ubuntu).

I would never recommend Fedora as main distro for productive use, especially not for newbies.

[mgraham]

I vote no for my own personal reasons, no for the success of KXStudio and no for the future of pro-audio on Linux.

NO, for my own personal reasons: I use linux for non-music stuff: work, email, browsing, etc. After playing around with more hands-on and tweakable systems, I settled on Ubuntu, because it's the least amount of hassle to keep things working. Plus, most commercial software targets Ubuntu. I don't want to switch to a different linux distro just for audio, and I don't want to maintain a second linux distro just for music. My laptop already dual-boots into Windows 7, where I have a fairly mature music environment (Cubase 6.5 + VSTs). If I wanted to reboot all the time, I'd reboot into Windows.

NO, for the success of KXStudio: I think it's a killer feature of KXStudio that it overlays on Ubuntu and doesn't require a complete reinstall of your OS. For ordinary users, it's a fairly large investment in time and effort to reinstall their system. I think a lot of new users and Windows refugees are using Ubuntu, and KXStudio makes it easy to make music on their existing system without having to reinstall everything.

NO, for the future of pro-audio on Linux: Audio sucks on Linux, and KXStudio is making it suck MUCH LESS. If KXStudio stays on Ubuntu, then linux pro-audio can become mainstream. If KXStudio goes elsewhere, then fully working pro-audio will remain a niche thing on linux - something that you have to install a custom distribution to have access to.

[tatch]

mrgraham and tarrasque bring up good points. I'm going to vote no too.

[DoosC]

Another yes/no
I already know kubuntu so I would prefer to stay on kubuntu, but with that kind of though I could have sticked to windows for years...
On the other hand if KXStudio moves to a distro that is as easy to install, that offers the same level of driver support and ease of use then why not ?
I don't know if Arch is the right one in this respect or not because you can't judge what you don't know...

[Tarrasque]

I second everythin mcgraham said, and he also brought up a point I forgot to stress.

I did't want to rant or seem ungrateful in my previous post. In fact I'm very grateful for KXstudio and the hard work FalkTX puts in it.

I also really want KXstudio to be successful. It's the first Linux music oriented distro I have to say has really impressed me.

I'm a guitarist. I'm a complete newb regarding computer produced music. Yet, with a little effort, really appreciated help from this forum (and thanks to my programmer background - unfortunately it has to be said - with Linux sometimes it's needed) I could find my way among VST, Jack, low latence and all the other watchamacallits.

That's because Cadence and all the rest are great stuff. And one of my dreams is some day go to my musician friends using Win or Mac and show them - hey I can do some really neat stuff too, and convince them to try KXstudio.

But it won't happen unless KXstudio is based on Ubuntu. I'm quite positive about that. Linux scares non geek people. Ubuntu a great deal less. They talk about it in magazines - even not completely Linux focused ones. They give installer CDs in magazines. Commercial software targest Ubuntu.

I can't stess that enough.

[tux99]

Linux scares non geek people. Ubuntu a great deal less.

Most things unknown scare most people. Ubuntu only scares you less because that's what you know. Given that KXstudio already uses KDE (as opposed to the default Ubuntu Unity desktop) switching to any other KDE based distro will make almost no difference from a user point of view, the user will still see the same familiar KDE desktop.

One of the great plus points of Mageia is the Mageia Control Centre (inherited from Mandrake/Mandriva) which is quite unique and makes it far easier to set up additional hardware (printers, scanners, network file shares, ...) than in any other Linux distro.

If you ever try out Mageia you will be wondering why you stuck with Ubuntu for so long, given that Mageia is more user friendly than Ubuntu.

BTW, I'm not a Mageia fanboy, I don't even currently use it myself (I use Centos), but I always install Mageia for friends who ask me for a newbie friendly Linux dstro.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I was a yesno, which was purely selfish, but I didn't vote at that stage.

Having read the thoughts of the other posters, presenting much wider issues, I'm now going to tick the 'no' box.

(having voted, and now seeing the results so far --- I'm surprised.)

[Tarrasque]

Linux scares non geek people. Ubuntu a great deal less.

Most things unknown scare most people. Ubuntu only scares you less because that's what you know. Given that KXstudio already uses KDE (as opposed to the default Ubuntu Unity desktop) switching to any other KDE based distro will make almost no difference from a user point of view, the user will still see the same familiar KDE desktop.

No, that's not the same thing.

I can install KXstudio on top of an existing Ubuntu installation.

That means I can just log in and use it with Unity if I want to. And regarless of my DE of choice I don't have to reboot to make music.

Like others have said, it's a great dealbreaker. If you have to reboot in order to make music, then why not keep dualbooting in Windows, with all the advantages that Windows has in the field of music software?

[Shupacabras]

Falk
You use the base
deemed appropriate

I for my part I have no time
to learn to use another distro

it's a shame for me
you leave Ubuntu
But I will respect your decision

Sorry for my bad English

[Capoeira]

I must say, I'm thinking of changing my vote to "no".
Unless you have a solution for:

There are GUIs for Pacman, but the user has to do 2 things manualy form time to time:

1) pacnew/pacsave files. they have to be merged and this can't be automated

2) some time it's neccessary to make changes in a config file of /etc - Arch Newsletter has to be read before every update.

If you can solve these (read, do that in some way for the user), your distro based on Arch will be as easy to use and as stable as before, or even better

[urlwolf]

I vote no. We have enough fragmentation as it is...

[looplog]

Sorry, this is going to be a little long, but I hope you will read.

I voted yes but for entirely selfish reasons, and after reading the comments I may change to no.

I'm glad that your tools are available on Arch, I use Arch daily as both my main desktop and as my main audio distro. But I can see it presenting serious hurdles for beginners.

As two examples, consider the shift to systemd and the recent move of the QT package to QT5/QT4. Both have been a painful transition for me. Systemd was a big pain for many others too, killing a lot of systems. I managed to avoid it by holding off updating for as long as I possibly could so I could understand exactly how the shift would impact my systems. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be in the end, but the way the shift happened angered many in the Arch community in the same way that some of Canonical's moves are. The people who got burned the most by that shift were casual users or non Arch-geeks. These are the kind of users I would expect to use kxstudio on Arch too. The shift to the new QT packages is not as bad, but it does mean I have to rebuild *every* package from the AUR that depends on QT, even forcing me to modify the PKGBUILDs myself if no one else has done it.

So the only way I could see an Arch based KXstudio working effectively for casual/light/non-geek users would be if you take up the task of managing updates somehow, perhaps even providing your own update script to deal with the issues of changing config files, cutting edge updates that potentially bork systems and so on. You could maybe base KX on one of the more managed Arch derivatives, like Manjaro, but then you won't get much support from the main Arch community, which tends to be very "purist".

There are other issues too. The Arch forums can be very helpful, but the more experienced forum members are very unforgiving of beginners. Basically, if you don't do your homework before posting in the forums you can and will get abused, in the nicest way possible of course. This is actually a good thing for me, as there is less useless chatter in the forums and it encourages people to know what they are talking about before asking for help. But it is a big expectation for non-technical users. I could foresee you having to take on an extra support burden for people unable to get beginner-friendly support in the Arch forums.

Nils mentioned the Archaudio community, but it's not really active. Maybe bringing KX to Arch would fix this, but the Archaudio mailing list gets only a handful of emails a month, and the forums there haven't had a post in months.

The AUR has also become a little stale. There was a boost of activity about a year or so ago, but since then I think some packagers have moved away. Quite a few of the obscure PKGBUILDS have either disappeared or are now unmaintained.

So I think you need to consider the possibility that moving to Arch could potentially increase your support and packaging burden significantly. I love Arch, but I am always hesitant to recommend it to beginners simply because it is a distro for people who are prepared to take responsibility for the maintenance of their own systems. Most audio users don't really want that (understandably).

RPM was mentioned, and it is something you may want to consider. Fedora 18 has been fairly roundly criticized as one of the worst Fedora releases ever, but at least Planet CCRMA exists with RT kernels and some packages, and the Fedora packaging team has been quite active in maintaining audio packages. There is also an audio spin available for Fedora, which could be something to work with.

The other possibility is openSUSE. I know it doesn't get a lot of love in the FLOSS community because of the whole Novell/MS deal, but that it is unfair in my opinion. openSUSE is community run, and only has minimal ties to Novell these days. The openbuild system is excellent - it offers the kind of hosting that PPA offers but I find the build system much more accessible. In fact, the openbuild system would allow you to maintain both Ubuntu and opensuse repos from the same location (or in fact, it can also build for Fedora, Debian and some other distros). It also offers web based tools for packaging your own ISOs. Rui already packages all his apps for openSUSE. Plus it is already a KDE-focused distro. Personally I would love to see openSUSE shine as an audio distro in the way that JACKlab promised to back in the day. All the tools are there and it is a very polished and accessible KDE distro.