Re: irc meeting
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Mike Holstein wrote: > NEXT MEETING at UTC Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 01:00:00 in the irc > channel #ubuntustudio-devel on freenode. > i used http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html to convert the > time to UTC... for example... > "Location Local time Time zone New York (U.S.A. - New York) Tuesday, > December 21, 2010 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-5 hours EST > UTC Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 01:00:00" > the following link will put you right in the 'action' after you choose a > nick name and solve a captcha.. > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=ubuntustudio-devel&uio=d4 I'll try to get my work schedule adjusted so I can attend this time. It should hopefully not be too hard to do. Also, thanks for picking my design idea for the site! It'll be fun to see where it goes from here. On a side note, I finally finished a small on-line portfolio, which I said I would show you all whenever it was done. It is here for anyone who is interested: http://www.sunmachine.coop/briandavid/ Thanks! -- -Brian David -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Kernel testing
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Ronan Jouchet wrote: > On 10-12-07 12:50 PM, ailo wrote: > >> I noticed Alessio asked Tims opinion on whether or not the lowlatency >> kernel is needed. >> I don't know what has been suggested or talked about in the past, so >> forgive me if I repeat something here. >> >> [...] >> >> >> Maybe someone in this mail-list does tests to determine whether or not >> the generic kernel can do these things as well as the >> lowlatency/realtime kernels? >> > > Hello everybody, > > Alessio, Tim, I fail to understand this sudden position shift towards > -lowlatency. Half a dozen users tested the -lowlatency kernel this summer, > with the following results: > - Yes, lowlatency provides noticeably lower latency than generic > - Rt/realtime remains snappier and thus remain a requirement for diehard > audio users needing top notch performance. > - However, rt/realtime are very painful to maintain compared to lowlatency > that consists in "simple" build-time tweaks > > This resulted in an apparently well-accepted *focus on lowlatency for > Natty*, summed up by Scott in end-of-September emails. We even nailed it in > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RealTime , including a testing table featuring two > neat green "lowlatency" rows. > > Alessio, don't get me wrong here: I respect this amazing work you've been > doing (and that I'd totally be unable to do), I know you are doing it alone, > and I know the absence of feedback can get discouraging. > I just want to understand why this question pops now. We should be pushing > for inclusion in Natty, and instead of focusing on testing and bugfixing we > are re-debating an already closed subject. > > Anyway, *yes there is ongoing testing*: right now holstein, ailo, I (and > possibly other users) are testing it. Again: > Testers: please keep hammering the lowlatency kernel from Alessio's PPA, > and report your test results. > Alessio: please bear with us and continue your efforts, rest assured the > interest is there. > > I hope this email doesn't sound harsh. No aggressiveness intended, I only > mean to be synthetic and to the point. Thank you, > > Ronan Jouchet > Note: Natty is currently kinda playful to test: it seems a (gdm2?) package update causes login to fail (even with no-Unity "Classic" sessions, even right after the first update of on a clean ubuntustudio install), making it impossible to go past the login screen. Meh. Will try again to test lowlatency in a few days. Bye, Ronan -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Kernel testing
On 10-12-07 12:50 PM, ailo wrote: > I noticed Alessio asked Tims opinion on whether or not the lowlatency > kernel is needed. > I don't know what has been suggested or talked about in the past, so > forgive me if I repeat something here. > > [...] > > Maybe someone in this mail-list does tests to determine whether or not > the generic kernel can do these things as well as the > lowlatency/realtime kernels? Hello everybody, Alessio, Tim, I fail to understand this sudden position shift towards -lowlatency. Half a dozen users tested the -lowlatency kernel this summer, with the following results: - Yes, lowlatency provides noticeably lower latency than generic - Rt/realtime remains snappier and thus remain a requirement for diehard audio users needing top notch performance. - However, rt/realtime are very painful to maintain compared to lowlatency that consists in "simple" build-time tweaks This resulted in an apparently well-accepted *focus on lowlatency for Natty*, summed up by Scott in end-of-September emails. We even nailed it in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RealTime , including a testing table featuring two neat green "lowlatency" rows. Alessio, don't get me wrong here: I respect this amazing work you've been doing (and that I'd totally be unable to do), I know you are doing it alone, and I know the absence of feedback can get discouraging. I just want to understand why this question pops now. We should be pushing for inclusion in Natty, and instead of focusing on testing and bugfixing we are re-debating an already closed subject. Anyway, *yes there is ongoing testing*: right now holstein, ailo, I (and possibly other users) are testing it. Again: Testers: please keep hammering the lowlatency kernel from Alessio's PPA, and report your test results. Alessio: please bear with us and continue your efforts, rest assured the interest is there. I hope this email doesn't sound harsh. No aggressiveness intended, I only mean to be synthetic and to the point. Thank you, Ronan Jouchet -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
