[Ardour-Users] Compiling Ardour ?

[John Emmas]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lanas" <lanas at securenet.net>
Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Compiling Ardour ?
>
> I guess I prefer dumber and stable over fancy and erratic :-)
>
I don't find that sarcastic at all.  In fact, it probably applies to the
vast majority of the world's computer users.  I can appreciate that there
are people like Josh who prefer to "live on the edge" but, as Bill Gates is
finding out with Vista, it's a philosophy that most of the world is happy to
live without..!

I must admit though, Lanas, these statements surprised me because
you seem to have answered your own question:-

From: "lanas" <lanas at securenet.net>
>
> What would prevent a smooth upgrade path scaled over time instead of
> sudden version changes ?
>
> I might be inexperienced in the domain of world-distributed distros and
> what I see is that dramatic changes in glibc would warrant a similar
> theatrical major version change.
>
The thing that hampers smooth, scaled changes in Linux is that it depends on
lots of underlying technologies which are mostly being developed by private
individuals working at their own pace and to their own timescales.  When a
major component changes, at least some of the developers who depend on that
component need to stop what they're doing and turn their attention to
compatibility issues.  This in turn, can create further compatibility issues
which result in the constant flurry of upgrades about which you first
complained.  It's very different from the situation with Apple or
Microsoft - where major changes can be kept "in house" until the company
feels ready to release them.

It's ironic - but that's the price you pay for not having to pay!!

Cheers,
John


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lanas" <lanas at securenet.net>
To: <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
Sent: 27 January 2008 03:08
Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] Compiling Ardour ?


> Le Samedi, 26 Janvier 2008 16:42:10 -0800,
> Josh Parmenter <josh at realizedsound.net> a écrit :
>
>> I'm constantly amazed (and saddened for nando) about the rate of
>> change in Fedora. On Mac, I was quite grateful for the Leopard
>> delay. I guess the only solution (if you want slower development)
>> would be to switch to Windows where OS changes take many years.
>
> I must say that I do not agree with this.  An extreme is not an
> alternative to another extreme.  What would prevent a smooth upgrade
> path scaled over time instead of sudden version changes ?
>
> I might be inexperienced in the domain of world-distributed distros and
> what I see is that dramatic changes in glibc would warrant a similar
> theatrical major version change.  And that is, if you want really to
> upgrade glibc as if you'd like very much to drive in a brand new car
> knowing very well that you loose $5,000 has soon as you get out of the
> dealership's garage. So to speak.
>
> I mean, careful ponderation should be exercized.  For instance, does
> the new ardour need the new glibc badly ?  I think not.  And I think
> not for many, many packages.  Not even the kernel.
>
> So I think it is very possible to simply keep the upgrades of the
> packages without changing to a new major release.  You might not get
> the latest Windows-compatible KDE based on the
> global-mobile-satellite-ready newest Qt but then, what are the users
> _really_ loosing ?  Can they wait a year or more for the next major
> release if you provide in the meanwhile a smooth upgrade path to most
> of the major packages including security patches and kernel upgrades
> without the need to reinstall an OS ? I think many can.
>
> It sure beats having to reinstall an OS every 3 months and, as the case
> is for audio work, harrassing Fernando for brand-new packages because
> now that the new OS verison is installed, one has to wait for the audio
> packages to be ready so that one can make music.  This is nonsense.  At
> beat it provides great times to play that accoustic guitar and record
> sketches on a portable mp3 recorder ! ;-)
>
> On one hand we had a Windows OS that had to be reinstalled every once
> in a while for any kind of reasons and on the other hand we have Linux
> systems that asks you to reinstall steadily a few times per year.
>
> I guess I could be ready for Debian but I ran homemade Linux systems
> built from scratch (eg. LFS) for many years both professionally and at
> home, running VmWare, MuSE, and all apps under WindowMaker.  I steered
> out of the way a few years ago but now I'm back at it and really, my
> experience with pre-packaged Linux distros is all right, but when it
> comes down to it, a homemade maintained Linux distro always had my
> favor for stability of both OS and applications.  You know what's going
> on in there, and the boot scripts are not by any means like labyrinths
> of artificial intelligence.
>
> I guess I prefer dumber and stable over fancy and erratic :-)
>
> Thanks for reading, I hope you found that entertaining.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al
> _______________________________________________
> Ardour-Users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
>