[PlanetCCRMA] Linux distributions and audio (Was: drop outs with FC8...)
Greg DeKoenigsberg
greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com
Mon Jan 7 00:25:21 2008
------=_Part_40467_1345388.1199661665291
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat and have been the chairman of the Fedora
Project board. So I humbly apologize, in advance, if you should detect any
bias in what I am about to say.
1. When you go beyond the packaging mechanisms, the differences between
Ubuntu and Fedora, in practice, are certainly much less pronounced than you
seem to think. If you compare the relative stability between Fedora and
Ubuntu from version to version, you will see that this is, for the most
part, true -- with occasional horror stories on both sides. Why? Because
we are both repackaging the same upstreams. In fact, in kernel land, you
will frequently see that Fedora is *more* stable than Ubuntu is from release
to release. Why? Because Red Hat employs an order of magnitude more kernel
developers than Canonical does. Fedora is no more or no less "experimental"
than Ubuntu is. This is an old meme, largely instigated (sadly) by Red
Hat's own sales department to protect sales of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and
largely repeated (sadly) by certain elements of the Ubuntu community because
it benefits them to position Fedora as "the perpetual beta". That's how
competition works.
2. The reason there's a viable real time kernel at all is because of the
work of Ingo Molnar, Red Hat employee and Fedora contributor. The reason
that the rt kernel continues to march towards viability, and ultimate
inclusion into the mainline kernel, is because of Red Hat's need to service
large telephony customers. All of the audio distributions now depend upon
this work -- and because Ingo is a RH guy, you can rest assured that the rt
kernel is more likely to be more easily integrated into Fedora as a result.
3. If you want a supportable, stable version of Planet CCRMA, then step up
to package maintainership, which you can now do thanks to the involvement of
the Fedora project. Nando does an *insane* amount of work to bring CCRMA to
you, and unless you've built and distributed your own custom kernels, you
have literally no idea how much pain we're talking about. One of the
reasons that we're trying to help pull much of Planet CCRMA into Fedora is
so that we can spread out the maintenance of most CCRMA packages to multiple
maintainers -- so that Nando can focus on the thing that matters most: the
CCRMA kernel. Fedora has the infrastructure to support multiple package
maintainers; Nando does not.
4. If you *really* want a supportable, stable version of Planet CCRMA, then
help port the CCRMA/FC6 packages to a CentOS 5 repository, and volunteer to
keep them updated. That way, you get the most stable package base in the
entire Linux world. Of course, you don't get nearly as much innovation,
because INNOVATION AND STABILITY ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GOALS. And then
I'm sure we'll hear complains that such-and-such package in CentOS isn't
being updated. That's the way it goes, folks.
5. If you really do think that Ubuntu is the way to go, then go talk to Jono
Bacon and tell him you'd like to help support Studio. I'm sure he would be
*delighted* with the help -- because the Ubuntu community has a lot of
talkers, but they don't have nearly as many doers in the packaging space as
you might suppose (80 active members of MOTU; 200+ active members of the
Fedora packaging group; go look it up.)
Sure, Fedora has its issues and its tradeoffs, but if you want to make
comparisons, make informed comparisons.
--g
------=_Part_40467_1345388.1199661665291
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat and have been the chairman of the Fedora Pro=
ject board. So I humbly apologize, in advance, if you should detect a=
ny bias in what I am about to say.<br><br>1. When you go beyond the packagi=
ng mechanisms, the differences between Ubuntu and Fedora, in practice, are =
certainly much less pronounced than you seem to think. If you compare=
the relative stability between Fedora and Ubuntu from version to version, =
you will see that this is, for the most part, true -- with occasional horro=
r stories on both sides. Why? Because we are both repackaging t=
he same upstreams. In fact, in kernel land, you will frequently see t=
hat Fedora is *more* stable than Ubuntu is from release to release. W=
hy? Because Red Hat employs an order of magnitude more kernel develop=
ers than Canonical does. Fedora is no more or no less "experimen=
tal" than Ubuntu is. This is an old meme, largely instigated (sa=
dly) by Red Hat's own sales department to protect sales of Red Hat Ente=
rprise Linux, and largely repeated (sadly) by certain elements of the Ubunt=
u community because it benefits them to position Fedora as "the perpet=
ual beta". That's how competition works.
<br><br>2. The reason there's a viable real time kernel at all is becau=
se of the work of Ingo Molnar, Red Hat employee and Fedora contributor.&nbs=
p; The reason that the rt kernel continues to march towards viability, and =
ultimate inclusion into the mainline kernel, is because of Red Hat's ne=
ed to service large telephony customers. All of the audio distributio=
ns now depend upon this work -- and because Ingo is a RH guy, you can rest =
assured that the rt kernel is more likely to be more easily integrated into=
Fedora as a result.
<br><br>3. If you want a supportable, stable version of Planet CCRMA, then =
step up to package maintainership, which you can now do thanks to the invol=
vement of the Fedora project. Nando does an *insane* amount of work t=
o bring CCRMA to you, and unless you've built and distributed your own =
custom kernels, you have literally no idea how much pain we're talking =
about. One of the reasons that we're trying to help pull much of =
Planet CCRMA into Fedora is so that we can spread out the maintenance of mo=
st CCRMA packages to multiple maintainers -- so that Nando can focus on the=
thing that matters most: the CCRMA kernel. Fedora has the infrastruc=
ture to support multiple package maintainers; Nando does not.
<br><br>4. If you *really* want a supportable, stable version of Planet CCR=
MA, then help port the CCRMA/FC6 packages to a CentOS 5 repository, and vol=
unteer to keep them updated. That way, you get the most stable packag=
e base in the entire Linux world. Of course, you don't get nearly=
as much innovation, because INNOVATION AND STABILITY ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPP=
OSED GOALS. And then I'm sure we'll hear complains that such-=
and-such package in CentOS isn't being updated. That's the wa=
y it goes, folks.
<br><br>5. If you really do think that Ubuntu is the way to go, then go tal=
k to Jono Bacon and tell him you'd like to help support Studio. I=
'm sure he would be *delighted* with the help -- because the Ubuntu com=
munity has a lot of talkers, but they don't have nearly as many doers i=
n the packaging space as you might suppose (80 active members of MOTU; 200+=
active members of the Fedora packaging group; go look it up.)
<br><br>Sure, Fedora has its issues and its tradeoffs, but if you want to m=
ake comparisons, make informed comparisons.<br><br>--g<br>
------=_Part_40467_1345388.1199661665291--