[Ardour-Users] Compiling Ardour ?

[Mark Greenwood]

The way I see it is this.. if the system is working and it does what you 
want it to, why upgrade? For me, I set a system up to do a job and once 
it works I leave it alone (the old adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix 
it). I still have a 10-year old WIndows98 box which does the job I set 
it up for, and doesn't need upgrading. Where I work we have some 15-year 
old 286 machines that boot from floppy, because they do one job, they do 
it perfectly, so why change. Hell I know recording studios still running 
the original Cubase on Atari STs. If you must have the 
latest-and-greatest versions of everything then there's a price to pay. 
As John writes, Linux is not developed in any particularly controlled 
way, but at least you have the option to choose when and how to upgrade.

Just my 2p worth.

Mark

John Emmas wrote:
> ----- 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
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ardour-Users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
>