at the end.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM, David Olofson wrote:
> On Thursday 28 January 2010, at 21.01.38, David McClanahan
> wrote:
> [...]
> > > The relevant definition of "hard realtime system" here is "a system
> that
> > > always responds in bou
at a
time.
The fair part may be the "3 levels of cache" which I assume amounts to a
buffering delay.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM, David McClanahan
> wrote:
> > Another issue to me is not just getting a hard realtime sy
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:47 PM, David Olofson wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 January 2010, at 21.15.43, David McClanahan
> wrote:
> [...]
> > 3. I'm a little worried about what some are calling realtime systems. The
> > realtime system that is part of Ubuntu Stu
getting a hard realtime system going, but
some tool to analyze code output from the compiler to tell me its execution
time(based upon processor/clock conditions)
d
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM, David McClanahan
> wrote:
> >
Hi,
Thanks for the response. Some thoughts
1. Bristol synth was one the first synths I tried. I had installed
Ubuntu(Karma I think. BTW: Ubuntu is based off Debian and that packaging
system didn't seem to save me from breaking things) and then used various
"apt" commands suggested on the Ubuntu
Hi,
Where to start? I have a Dell 7000 laptop and I'm wondering if it can be a
music synthesizer(something like a Minimoog). If not, why not?
I know there are much more powerful machines out but that's beside the
point. If the goal is a dedicated performance grade synth(as in it sounds
good and d
