LinuxMusicians

A link to the sourceforge.net site
https://sourceforge.net/projects/realti ... ger/files/

j_e_f_f_g wrote:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... px=MTc1MDQ

Since I'm using debian testing...

I don't understand why developers use unstable development bases, especially when they want other people to use their apps... falkTX still does his plugin builds on Ubuntu Lucid!, the drumgizmo guys have a CentOS (RHEL 6) build server to test compatibility. If more developers would use stable and/or LTS releases to develop stuff it would do a lot to enhance the stability and usability of Linux Audio apps and look better on the platform in general IMHO...

'just sayin'

GMaq wrote:why developers use unstable

To utilize the latest APIs/headers. Debian Testing is essentially a rolling release. (Sid is the unstable one).

And you need the latest APIs/headers because OSS devs have a tendency to break their APIs without providing backward compatibility. So if you don't keep pace with upstream, you can waste time needlessly rewriting your code. For example, when I was using a "stable" version, I wrote an app using libusb. When I tested on a newer version, the app wouldn't run. The libusb guys broke their api, so I had to rewrite all the parts of my app using that api. Same thing happened with some gnome code.

Breaking backward compatibility is no big deal to packagers, because you wait for the dev to rewrite his code and then you just update the dependencies. Trivial and quick. But rewriting code can involve weeks/months of lost work, and weeks/months of new work. That's why Microsoft never break an api.

j_e_f_f_g wrote: That's why Microsoft never break an api.

In our project a lot of the code is written just to provide backward compatibility (greetings GMaq). The, one of, reason why we use linux, is, still, because linux moves forward. Linux didn't hold on the mistakes of yesterday for any price, for any time. Moving forward, means as well, leave behind you what was badly designed. Microsoft do that in steps, linux do that at any time, slowly move forward.

(But still, we never break our own api, without version jump, that is a right conclusion)

(debian sid user here)

GMaq wrote: I don't understand why developers use unstable development bases,

Because that is the only way to become a part of debian, later on ubuntu, or most of the other "official" distributions. unstable -> 10 days -> testing -> 1 year -> stable. You can only enter the distributions on there development state.
Otherwise, you will always be a "outlaw", not accepted by any "official distribution", like the work of falktx.
Keep in mind, that at least, this will split the community. (who ever is wrong or right here, "what did stable mean?????????")
Also, keep in mind, that you, as well falktx, based your work on this behavior of the debian folks.
I, can't understand, how you could put that under question. If you both start to support debian, we all would benefit. And when I talk about support, I didn't mean "make a private debian compatible repository".

However, I respect your's work(and will still support it), but, my intention is still a other.

Hi,

I can admit that my question is a bit misinformed and I have confused development with deployment, since upstream is the entry point of the new APIs, libs etc. then I suppose it makes sense that writers of code want fresh tools to use and adapt to their purpose. When people do this and keep mindful of downstream compatibility and maintain a stable API (like tramp) then I guess I should just be happy and care less, it's really none of my damn business.. In the examples I gave above with falkTX and drumgizmo, I'm sure they also write and develop on much newer systems and simply test the backward compatibility on the older distribution builds... so I'm a confused dummy, fair enough..

As I've said before I think an AV Workstation should have it's guts disturbed as little as possible, when I say 'stable' I mean leave the kernel, Xorg, GRUB, GTK, QT, libc6 and other 'chassis' components alone as much as possible. Debian Sid and Testing are playing around with that stuff all the time, if you are an experienced Linux user then you may not care especially if you know Debian inside and out, but if you're 'just a guy' and want your computer to be a reliable military grade 'appliance' that behaves the same every time you turn it on then you will appreciate the stable ideology. I use Debian because it is all that I know and has great developer tools, they have no interest in bringing upstream multimedia apps to their stable branch and I think their stable (indeed currently oldstable!) branch is the most reliable option for the end user to sit down and be productive so we have a BIG disconnect... that's all there is to it, I'm not trying to be an 'outlaw' or think I'm too clever to support them, or expect them to support me... I'm sure they don't even know or care that I exist..

GMaq wrote: I don't understand why developers use unstable development bases, especially when they want other people to use their apps...

It used to be 'Too many chiefs, not enough Indians', but now the Chiefs have been
sent to the Happy Hunting Grounds, and every Indian wears a warriors head-dress.
And tweets, "My way, or the highway"

Beyond that, it could be that devs are not all blessed with multiple computers,
and that sooner or later some special app, or crucial version,
only comes available in the bleeding edge thickets, and so that becomes the haunt of choice.
It's definitely how I deal with linux, from a musicians point of view.
If there's no warning about using it, it's too old

GMaq wrote: I don't understand why developers use unstable development bases, especially when they want other people to use their apps... falkTX still does his plugin builds on Ubuntu Lucid!, the drumgizmo guys have a CentOS (RHEL 6) build server to test compatibility. If more developers would use stable and/or LTS releases to develop stuff it would do a lot to enhance the stability and usability of Linux Audio apps and look better on the platform in general IMHO...

Lots of great apps get forgotten in linux just because they were written with a certain version of a library (Qt3, Gtk1, etc) and the library got updated, the distros stopped shipping the old versions and even trying to install a binary package is a real nightmare downloading dependencies manually (not to speak of building from source, which usually doesn't work at all).

Right now I'm thinking of chibitracker, cheesetracker, soundtracker, shaketracker, tutka, and a big etc. All trackers, right, but every one of them had an edge on what they did. And the change of libraries killed them. If libraries were the same it would be easy to mantain them even if their authors stopped development. But they are bound to be forgotten and it's really sad.

This situation has to change some time or it will always be painful to have a working audio setup. Why should we not be able to run good apps from 10 years ago? It just isn't possible to have both new and old software under the same install.

I'm by no means a windows fanboy, but the biggest windoze feature is that you can install software written for v3.11 on xp and it'll work without a complain (think cakewalk 3.01).

Once software reaches a certain level of maturity, it shouldn't be touched anymore. Another example: Rosegarden, a great fully featured MIDI sequencer that works reliably (unless you use the hrtimer as clock source). In a few years time, they will have to port it to Qt5 or it will die. You can't possibly conceive all the side effects the porting will have. And the only reason to port it is to keeo it supported on newer distros.
A package this important to the linux audio ecosystem should stay as steady as possible code wise. Who cares if it looks outdated? It just has to allow you to track your parts and output MIDI reliably.

Just a 5 minute rant. So much talent wasted gets me mad.

Have a good one.

DepreTux wrote: Why should we not be able to run good apps from 10 years ago? It just isn't possible to have both new and old software under the same install.

I'm by no means a windows fanboy, but the biggest windoze feature is that you can install software written for v3.11 on xp and it'll work without a complain (think cakewalk 3.01).

Once software reaches a certain level of maturity, it shouldn't be touched anymore. Another example: Rosegarden, a great fully featured MIDI sequencer that works reliably (unless you use the hrtimer as clock source). In a few years time, they will have to port it to Qt5 or it will die. You can't possibly conceive all the side effects the porting will have. And the only reason to port it is to keeo it supported on newer distros.
A package this important to the linux audio ecosystem should stay as steady as possible code wise. Who cares if it looks outdated? It just has to allow you to track your parts and output MIDI reliably.

Just a 5 minute rant. So much talent wasted gets me mad.

Have a good one.

DepreTux,

Amen brother, you are preaching to the converted!!

The impermanence of the underlying libraries in Linux is a huge deficit with it effectvely being deployed in professional settings (other than servers where mature versions retain their usefulness for much longer). It's a real heartbreaker for sure... As jeffg pointed out making API's sacred and immutable should truly be a pillar of ANY operating system, I don't think that necessarily means Microsoft is so great it should just be a common-sense methodology in a perfect world...

The 'freedom' of FLOSS is a double-edged sword unfortunately..

GMaq wrote:As jeffg pointed out making API's sacred and immutable should truly be a pillar of ANY operating system, I don't think that necessarily means Microsoft is so great it should just be a common-sense methodology in a perfect world...

The 'freedom' of FLOSS is a double-edged sword unfortunately..

It's weird; the memorable atari and commodore computers tried to keep things backwards compatible, but they developed on a single architecture. Since the mid 90s when PC and x86 insinuated themselves as the standard general purpose platform, things have been wild. But it's only been two decades.

I'm playing by ear, btw, I'm too young to remember that.

I'm sure many of us here will appreciate the hours spent tweaking linux in a few years time, when everyone is buying new equipment to run the latest OS and DAW, and we are keeping our old realtime linux box with debian, qtractor, amsynth, zynadd, etc.

That's the fanboy in me, though, haha. Linux is used mostly for shitty purposes throughout the world, and is mantained by evil corporations, never forget that. We are using the US Navy's missile guide kernel for deterministic psychedelic synthesizer music (never mind if this is bulshit).

Sun ra from outer space, have entertained you here!

(All this introspection comes because I'm cheering happy to have solved a long standing MIDI issue)