Everyone has their own opinion, such is life.
However there is one thing that I couldn't resist taking a bite at:
>Wrong in this case. Hardware detection is a thing that is hardly ever used.
>It needn't run all the time. And a GUI doesn't take performance these days
>- I have a graphics processor for such a task as displaying 2D dialogues
>that guide me to the right place to do things. Remember, these are
>configuring tasks i do every now and then and when i do them then i
>concentrate on it and hence the machine can concentrate on it. Nobody
>installs software during a live music performance. No need for tradeoffs
here.
This is just dead wrong, you speak with authority on things you appear to
know nothing about.
To use a nice gnome config utility you need all the gnome libraries - These
do slow down your system
To use a nice kde config utility you need the kde libraries - These do slow
down your system.
To use any graphical utility you need the libraries for it which will slow
down your system.
To avoid this you can use command line or curses based utility's which dont,
many prefer to do this, some do not. Hence the need for different versions
of Linux.
You seem to want the advantages of Linux but you dont want to do learn any
Linux ways of doing things.
The answer for you would appear to be OSX
On 11/24/06, Markus Petz <***@chello.at> wrote:
>
> At 23.11.2006 22:15, you wrote:
> >If it is detected which, due to the age of the card, it should be. Your
> >/etc/network/interfaces needs to have a section like this:
> >
> >auto eth0
> >iface eth0 inet static
> > address <http://192.168.0.196>192.168.0.196
> > netmask <http://255.255.255.0>255.255.255.0
> > gateway <http://192.168.0.100>192.168.0.100
> >
> >OR
> >
> >auto eth0
> >iface eth0 inet dhcp
>
> yes i do have this. For the first network card. Do you mean, i only have
> to
> type in a section for eth1 and that should do?
>
>
> >If it is not detected then you will need to manually load the modules for
> it.
>
> hm. Not worth the effort. A new card costs less than 10 euros and will
> work
> better.
>
>
> >This is the case in operating systems that are designed for people who
> >dont know how to do things manually, Agnula and Studio64 are stripped
> down
> >versions of debian so therefore dont have many of the nice GUI tools that
> >you seem to be looking for.
>
> I am speaking as a linux newbie. Even with Fedora and Knoppix I had the
> same problems. My problem is not that i do not have a GUI but that my
> computer does not talk human to me. Machines have to adapt to humans, not
> the opposite way. Once again, they have to! Example that bugged me, when i
> have a piece of software that i first need to compile and which has a
> dependency, then the compile process, among many (to me) useless things,
> tells me the dependency package is not installed. Then i look for it - and
> indeed it IS installed! What the machine should have told me: 'I need to
> have the SOURCE CODE of that package installed!'. It didn't and that took
> me hours to find out the hard way. - But what it really should do is
> automate a process that can be automated. When i want to install this
> program and it depends on some other package, then - of course! - it
> should
> download what it needs to fulfill my wish. No need for errors.
>
> > If you want something that is going to do it all automatically for you
> > then you need to go to something like Ubuntu but dont expect the same
> > performance. This is the trade-off.
>
> Wrong in this case. Hardware detection is a thing that is hardly ever
> used.
> It needn't run all the time. And a GUI doesn't take performance these days
> - I have a graphics processor for such a task as displaying 2D dialogues
> that guide me to the right place to do things. Remember, these are
> configuring tasks i do every now and then and when i do them then i
> concentrate on it and hence the machine can concentrate on it. Nobody
> installs software during a live music performance. No need for tradeoffs
> here.
>
>
> > If however you would like to learn how to get it going then just ask,
> > dont assume that every version of every operating system is designed to
> > please everyone. One of the reasons many people use Linux for Audio (and
> > Agnula/Studio64) is because it doesn't have all the gui tools which rob
> > your system of RAM and CPU power.
>
> Honestly, i don't think there is a need for so many versions of basically
> the same OS, especially if they work so differently that they become
> incompatible to another (take Debian and Redhat software installers for
> example). The last time i have seen a GUI rise the CPU counter was back in
> the pentium-1 days, without a real graphics processor. Besides, all sound
> processing software needs to have visualizing interfaces. I don't think
> there is a viable way to have a sequencer with only a text interface.
> Things like showing window content while dragging or fading menus should
> be
> made switchable. I turn them off anyway. Linux has the great advantage of
> modularity. Turn things on and off as you need, install only those
> packages
> you need. This logically leads to exactly one basic OS which can either be
> finished by software as a server or as a music machine or whatever. Or all
> at once - storage gets bigger and cheaper every minute, and we'll for sure
> have octal-core CPUs in no time. Distributions, join efforts and free some
> work now done triple, spare it to bring linux to the world!
>
> I am the user and i actually want to use my hardware. I wanted to start
> sound processing and making music with the instrument i thought i can
> handle best. At the same time i have the need to go linux. I want to
> create, and i am not interested in how the necessary basic software works
> in its guts. It only has to work. The machine is my servant and the
> software is my interface. Its job is to talk to the machine in machine
> language and to talk to me in human language, be it text or visual.
> My current approach in music leads me to a situation where i can boot
> linux
> and don't even get to start doing what i want to do, or i boot windows,
> install two or three programs that work out of the box and although i
> never
> touched a sequencer or a sampler before, these programs let me explore so
> i
> instantly start to play with the sounds. And i don't have to care for
> whatever technical stuff (those GUIs are yet not so easy but there is just
> too little space for text beside all those handles - anyway, i like to
> explore). Additionally, in win i have all my email, my good opera browser,
> my TV card works, the program which lowers CPU power consumption on the
> fly, coupled with the program which lowers the CPU fan speed on the fly,
> so
> i have a very quiet machine, of course switchable by two klicks when
> instant power needed, a suspend-to-disk feature that lets me after a very
> quick boot just continue everything from where i turned the machine off -
> and so on. Yes it has its flaws i can do nothing about because it does not
> give the opportunity to do it. I read up on how to do all this stuff in
> linux and i fear the day when i really start it. And once again, i'm not
> unexperienced in computer administration. I would love to have linux
> independency but it is really not made for comftably changing-the-fronts,
> IMO.
>
> ok, this was my manifest. Thank you, dear reader.
> -markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> ***@lists.agnula.org
> http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
--
'Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey the laws too well.'
Ralph Waldo Emerson