Can anyone recommend a good, current Linux distribution for running PD? I've had it with Red Hat!
By the way, your comments have all been very helpful, thanks :) Here's what I had to do - although I won't be recommending RH9 to anyone! After re-installing Red Hat 9 with text-based login, I found that the /etc/sysconfig/desktop file is where the default wm is set. After installing WindoMaker (it doesn't come with Red Hat 9!) I set it to: DESKTOP="WINDOWMAKER"
WindowMaker then became my default wm, the alsa drivers compiled (1.0.2 libs didn't compile, 1.0.1 libs did!) and after installing pd and making aliases for libtk.so.0 and libtcl.so.0 in /usr/lib/ linked to their respective libraries (and libstdc++.so.3 for xsample~ externals) I could launch PD. BUT...
Forget using Red Hat 9!!!The cpu usage was at 45% before I'd even turned audio on in my very-complex patch (compared to 1-3% on Red Hat 7.2) and abstractions took 5 minutes to come up after clicking on them! Unfortunately I don't have the disks for 7.2 any more, so I'm stuck with a 2.2 kernel distribution (Mandrake 7).
Can anyone recommend a current linux distribution for running PD? I've had enough of Red Hat! Peace, Ed
Lone Shark: Aviation. Electronic music for your mind, body and soul! Released March/April 2004 on Pyramid Transmissions. http://www.pyramidtransmissions.com/
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-admin@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin@iem.at]On Behalf Of Frank Barknecht Sent: 25 February 2004 09:37 To: thelist Subject: Re: [PD] Red Hat 9 and PD
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :) Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance, if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40% improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower latency.
I've switched to 2.6 now, and must say 2.6 is very okay. It had problems compared to a LL-patched 2.4 kernel, but a) those problems did'nt affect me and the way I work (I don't do 16-channel, 4 ms latency recordings) and b) from what I've heard, 2.6.3 fixed a lot of these latency problems. Still, for an out-of-the box kernel, 2.6 is impressive and I'd say: totally useable. (Except: I cannot print anymore.)
The new scheduler is wonderful. The system feels faster everywhere, alhough it probably isn't.
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list