From: Shane S. <wat...@ya...> - 2003-01-27 10:36:15
|
Why does installing software on Linux have to be so difficult? Do Linux developers make it hard on purpose? I know not every Linux app is as difficult to install, Mozilla for example. It automatically installs itself on just about any Linux distro. Why can't Rosegarden be like that? ===== Shane Semler everdark http://everdark.deviantart.com http://www.watchitman.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com |
From: Keiji <ke...@in...> - 2007-03-31 16:36:07
|
I can't get past this. How can I install uic? > rob@c2006:~/bin/rosegarden$ scons qtdir=/usr/lib/qt3/ > scons: Reading SConscript files ... > Checking for kde-config : kde-config was found as > /usr/bin/kde-config > Checking for kde version : 3.5.2 > Checking for the qt library : qt is in /usr/lib/qt3/ > Checking for uic : uic was not found - set QTDIR put > it in your PATH ? > rob@c2006:~/bin/rosegarden$ |
From: Diederick de V. <die...@di...> - 2007-03-31 16:47:30
|
Op Saturday 31 March 2007 schreef Keiji: > I can't get past this. How can I install uic? > > > Checking for uic : uic was not found - set QTDIR put > > it in your PATH ? uic is the Qt user interface compiler. It should come with the QT developme= nt=20 packages. If you compiled qt yourself, it should be in /usr/bin or so.=20 Perhaps you should do a find and add the result to your PATH, as instructed= =20 above. Diederick. =2D-=20 http://www.diederickdevries.net/ |
From: D. M. M. <mic...@ro...> - 2007-04-01 01:51:39
|
On Saturday 31 March 2007 12:39 pm, Keiji wrote: > I can't get past this. How can I install uic? > > > rob@c2006:~/bin/rosegarden$ scons qtdir=/usr/lib/qt3/ Since you're building from source anyway, why not start with a newer version? We've done two releases since switching away from scons, so that has to be old source. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Guillaume L. <gla...@te...> - 2003-01-27 11:07:44
|
On Monday 27 January 2003 11:36, Shane Semler wrote: > Why does installing software on Linux have to be so > difficult? Do Linux developers make it hard on > purpose? Of course we do. What kind of silly question is that. We take immense pride in making our software as hard to install as possible. 90% of the development time is spent on complexifying the installation process. You couldn't install it ? Great, we're soooo happy. And for the next release, it will be even greater : we'll make it very hard to download too. Hope you'll enjoy it. > I know not every Linux app is as difficult to > install, Mozilla for example. It automatically > installs itself on just about any Linux distro. Try here : http://rpm.nyvalls.se/sound9.0.html > Why can't Rosegarden be like that? Because it's hard to do. Part of the problem is that there are dozens of different Linux distribs, and we have very limited means. Another part is that Linux still sucks as a end-user platform, especially when you start dealing with sound of video. And yet another part is that when we get a report such as yours with zero information on what problems you have encountered, we can't do anything about it. -- Guillaume http://www.telegraph-road.org |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-27 11:17:26
|
Guillaume Laurent wrote: > Try here : http://rpm.nyvalls.se/sound9.0.html Rather bizarrely, when I load that page in Mozilla on this machine it degenerates into gibberish half-way through. It looks like a problem with gzip encoding, perhaps. Presumably not something Thac could do anything about. It's fine in Konqueror, anyway. Chris |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-27 11:18:42
|
Shane Semler wrote: > Why does installing software on Linux have to be so > difficult? Do Linux developers make it hard on > purpose? Yes, of course. Linux developers believe that a little pain and suffering makes us all better people in the long run. Nearly all Linux developers are united on this issue, regardless of their other beliefs. That's why nearly all Linux applications are practically impossible to install. It was hard to write, so it should be hard to run. More seriously, the usual answer has to be that all distributions are different, so it's not easy to provide binaries that will install immediately on any of them. Since we don't even have (for example) a RedHat system, we're highly unlikely to be able to provide binaries that work properly on RedHat. That's why we like to leave it up to third parties -- ideally the distributions themselves -- to provide binaries. Yes, this _is_ a problem with Linux in general, and one that I think it's perfectly reasonable to complain about, and one that really bugs me too. > I know not every Linux app is as difficult to > install, Mozilla for example. Mozilla has a team of about 15 full-time staff plus innumerable part-time contributors, and is a 1.x release of something that's been in development for about five years. Rosegarden-4 has 3-5 or so (depending on the phase of the moon) part-time hobbyists, has been on the go for less than three years, and is still some way from a 1.0 release. Of course Mozilla is also a more ambitious project in terms of scale, but Rosegarden has far more precise requirements in terms of things like audio support that are not necessarily well-supplied by mainstream distributions yet. And I believe a _lot_ of work went into making Mozilla self-install cleanly. > It automatically > installs itself on just about any Linux distro. But nowadays, why does that matter? It's included in just about any Linux distro anyway. I haven't installed Mozilla (from mozilla.org packages) for a year or more. When your distribution includes Rosegarden-4, you shouldn't have to install it either. Hell, that's what distributions are supposed to be _for_. Finally, _is_ it that hard? I've never actually tried installing any of the Rosegarden-4 RPMs or whatever myself, so I don't really know, though I know that some of the dependencies (such as JACK, or ALSA-0.9.x if your distribution is shit enough not to have it) can be tough. Obviously you wouldn't expect building from source to be trivial, so I assume you're talking about the various binary packages. Chris |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-27 11:37:13
|
Chris Cannam wrote: > Since we don't even have > (for example) a RedHat system, we're highly unlikely to be able > to provide binaries that work properly on RedHat. Hmm, I'm compelled to point out that my own argument here is somewhat bogus -- we have plenty of SuSE systems, and we don't supply RPMs for that either. On the other hand SuSE is one of the better distros at including recent versions of all sorts of software in the distro itself, and I'll be surprised if SuSE 8.2 doesn't include Rosegarden-4 on the disc. (Actually I don't even know how you make an RPM, but I guess there's some documentation somewhere...) Chris |
From: Mathias W. <ma...@we...> - 2003-01-27 11:56:19
|
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:32:55AM +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: > (Actually I don't even know how you make an RPM, but I guess > there's some documentation somewhere...) http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/RPM-HOWTO/build.html Don't get me wrong.. I'm debian user, no need for rpm. You were just asking :) Cu Mathias |
From: Mark K. <mar...@at...> - 2003-01-27 12:54:03
|
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 11:32, Chris Cannam wrote: > Chris Cannam wrote: > > Since we don't even have > > (for example) a RedHat system, we're highly unlikely to be able > > to provide binaries that work properly on RedHat. > > Hmm, I'm compelled to point out that my own argument here is > somewhat bogus -- we have plenty of SuSE systems, and we don't > supply RPMs for that either. On the other hand SuSE is one > of the better distros at including recent versions of all > sorts of software in the distro itself, and I'll be surprised > if SuSE 8.2 doesn't include Rosegarden-4 on the disc. > > (Actually I don't even know how you make an RPM, but I guess > there's some documentation somewhere...) > Chris, Hi. This user sent the same email to the Ardour reflectors with the app name changed. He's just whining, but it's not like he doesn't have a point. RPM's do help, if they are built correctly... This weekend I was trying to build a new little soft synth called amSynth that has just included Jack support. I am unable to build it right now as a library that only it uses (libsigc++) appears to be broken. It's installed by an RPM that comes from Redhat, I'm told, so even RPM's don't do much good if they are broken. I also remind the group that we do have an RPM for RG 0.8.5 on the Planet that should work for any user of 7.2, 7.3 or 8.0. Hopefully the original poster will read this can go take a look. IT's a good way to start with the application. I build RG from CVS, and in general it does build well, but it does have (by far) the most commend line options at the configure step of any of the 10 or so apps I build fro CVS . That always takes me a while to figure out all over again each time I have to go back that far in the build process. Don't know if you guys can make that easier somehow, but that would be my only input. Cheers, Mark |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-27 13:19:18
|
Mark Knecht wrote: > I also remind the group that we do have an RPM for RG 0.8.5 on the > Planet that should work for any user of 7.2, 7.3 or 8.0. This page lists a whole bunch of RPMs http://apps.kde.com/rf/2/info/id/1315 including for SuSE, which is the big omission on our own Download page. I think you have to get a subscription (free?) to get at them, so I haven't tried, myself. Perhaps we should link that from our Download page as well. Chris |
From: Mark K. <mar...@at...> - 2003-01-27 13:26:37
|
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 05:17, Chris Cannam wrote: > Mark Knecht wrote: > > I also remind the group that we do have an RPM for RG 0.8.5 on the > > Planet that should work for any user of 7.2, 7.3 or 8.0. > > This page lists a whole bunch of RPMs > > http://apps.kde.com/rf/2/info/id/1315 > > including for SuSE, which is the big omission on our own Download > page. I think you have to get a subscription (free?) to get at > them, so I haven't tried, myself. Perhaps we should link that from > our Download page as well. > > > Chris That's a good page. You should definitely point it out for new curious users. |
From: <th...@ho...> - 2003-01-27 13:30:41
|
The major difference in my site is that i also provides the needed dependencys which is not included in the standard release of Mandrake 9.0. Most places just provide the rpm and leaves to the user to get the dependencys, which is almost as hard as complining from source. My rpm could easily be converted and recompiled on any rpm based system because i also provide the needed srpms. /thac |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-28 10:00:48
|
The thing that confuses me about this thread is that it eventually turned out on the Ardour list that the complainant is using Mandrake 9. Since Thac's Mandrake 9 RPMs are linked quite clearly (I thought) from the Rosegarden download page, what I want to know is: did they not work, or did he just not find them? Anyway, he doesn't seem interested in solving the problem and it looks like he's unsubscribed rather than provide any more helpful information. But what I wonder is: is there actually _any_ way we could have replied to the original question that would have had any effect other than to permit him to rant a bit more about the conspiracy of Linux geeks trying to make his life hell by deliberately making software as hard to install as possible (a rant that frankly I find personally insulting), or should we just take it that anyone who starts off on that foot is a jerk and tell them to fuck off right away? (Shane, if by chance you haven't unsubscribed, perhaps you could help me out here too. How _should_ we have replied to your original post?) If this was a commercial operation, we could at least take the money and put up with the occasional tosser. As it is at least we don't feel we necessarily have to devote all our time to people who are obviously wasting it. But any free-software developer wants to be able to treat users as people and as equals, and it's no fun to have them trip up, insult you without any provocation, and then bugger off apparently without even reading the replies. It's not simply about cost, it's about the motivation for doing the work in the first place. Chris |
From: Mark K. <mk...@co...> - 2003-01-28 16:10:18
|
> > The thing that confuses me about this thread is that it eventually > turned out on the Ardour list that the complainant is using Mandrake 9. > > Since Thac's Mandrake 9 RPMs are linked quite clearly (I thought) from > the Rosegarden download page, what I want to know is: did they not work, > or did he just not find them? I'm totally guessing tike many people, he got started with high expectations and then got his hopes dashed when he found out how hard it is to make this stuff work. I just wasted almost my entire weekend trying to get amSynth to work. I spent hours and hours messing with RPMs, building gtk-- and libsigc++ from source, and nothing would make the damn thing compile. Yesterday Fernando spends 1 hour, changes two includes in one file, and it then compiles on RH 7.2, 7.3 and 8.0. I go home, type apt-get install amSynth and 60 seconds later I have a working soft synth. The original poster is looking for that experience, I think. what I don't understand is that with thac's stuff, and the Planet, I think people have a pretty good chance. Don't know what you do on other major distro's like Suse, or god forbid Gentoo. (which I'd like to try, but won't...) > > Anyway, he doesn't seem interested in solving the problem and it looks > like he's unsubscribed rather than provide any more helpful information. > But what I wonder is: is there actually _any_ way we could have replied > to the original question that would have had any effect other than to > permit him to rant a bit more about the conspiracy of Linux geeks > trying to make his life hell by deliberately making software as hard to > install as possible (a rant that frankly I find personally insulting), > or should we just take it that anyone who starts off on that foot is a > jerk and tell them to fuck off right away? The Linux-1394 guys have found a gem of a guy in Stefan Richter. He really understands using the 1394 stuff from a user's perspective. He helps people get it working. The developers are seldom involved on that reflector, and the topics are much closer to what the original poster was looking for here, I think. The right answer for him, if he would have responded at all, would have been a soft spoken person who asked what distro he was running and then pointed him to the right apt/rpm/whatever packages. I'll go one step further. We have ssh in Linux. When Jesse Chappel was developing freqtweak, he didn't have Redhat, and I couldn't get it to compile. It was a code problem. I set up an ssh account for Jesse, he logged into my machine, found the problem in his code, fixed it, committed it, and then I could build it. I think that was a great model, from the stand point of getting past the problem. I do not think that's practical for you three developers, but it's possible for us users to create an environment like that. If a Redhat user shows up, wants to build from CVS, and can't, then one of us Users should be able to help him out. Just an idea. > > (Shane, if by chance you haven't unsubscribed, perhaps you could help > me out here too. How _should_ we have replied to your original post?) > > If this was a commercial operation, we could at least take the money > and put up with the occasional tosser. As it is at least we don't feel > we necessarily have to devote all our time to people who are obviously > wasting it. But any free-software developer wants to be able to treat > users as people and as equals, and it's no fun to have them trip up, > insult you without any provocation, and then bugger off apparently > without even reading the replies. It's not simply about cost, it's > about the motivation for doing the work in the first place. > Nobody, developers or potential users, should ever feel like it has to get down to profanity due to frustration. Better to just go away, blow off steam, and come back on a better day. That said, I've often said that programmers don't realize just how frustrating building this code for non-programmers is. I think it was you Chris that blew up the other day about some piece of code that wouldn't compile? I sort of had to laugh, not at you, but just at the situation, since it seemed so familiar to me. Again, this said after 3 days of trying to build amSynth and wasting a weekend not doing any music at all. |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-28 17:27:57
|
btw, Mark Knecht wrote: > Don't know what you do on other major > distro's like Suse, or god forbid Gentoo. With SuSE you just use the SuSE DVD (or CDs). No low-latency kernel, I think, but you can get a decent consumer-grade audio experience from the standard distribution (including JACK and LADSPA and stuff). I'm sure Paul Davis would blench at the thought of running JACK without a low-latency kernel. And for Gentoo, well, you probably don't use Gentoo unless you like building things. I'm sure it's supposed to be easier to build them, though. FreeBSD's ports collection is rather similar -- everything is built from scratch when you request it -- and really it's no harder than installing binary packages: you just go to the right directory and make install. It's just much slower. Chris |
From: Mark K. <mk...@co...> - 2003-01-28 17:14:46
|
> Mark Knecht wrote: > > Don't know what you do on other major > > distro's like Suse, or god forbid Gentoo. > > With SuSE you just use the SuSE DVD (or CDs). No low-latency kernel, > I think, but you can get a decent consumer-grade audio experience > from the standard distribution (including JACK and LADSPA and stuff). > > I'm sure Paul Davis would blench at the thought of running JACK > without a low-latency kernel. Actually, no. Not as of this week. I believe a commit was made just last night by Kai (with Paul's blessing) that allows just that. Someone (Taybin? Jesse?) is going to update the official Jack release tarball as it is horribly out of date. The new command line option has something to do with -s. You won't, of course, get low latency results, but it should allow some new application spaces to grow, and allow developers to do some stuff they couldn't do before. (I haven't paid attention to what that might be...) |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-28 17:51:15
|
Mark Knecht wrote: > I believe a commit was made just last > night by Kai (with Paul's blessing) that allows just that. Is this the thing about ignoring xruns? Sounds fantastic to me. Chris |
From: Mark K. <mk...@co...> - 2003-01-28 17:59:55
|
That is exactly what it was. -s == ignore xrun. There was some discussion about a competing k_kackd program that did this. Or at least that's what I remember. My issue, off list and in the background, has been that xruns cannot cause an app to terminate. Imagine unattended recording. Long live sessions in Pro Tools often xrun, and Pro Tools quits. I have to sit there, create a new session on the fly, and then get it recording again. In the meantime I lose a minimum of 3 minutes of audio. In Ardour (and one day RG) I want to be able to set up a recording situation and let it go. If an xrun happens, the app should tell me where it was in the audio stream so that I can try to fix it, but the app MUST go on recording. Jack should not stop this from happening. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cannam [mailto:ca...@al...] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:45 AM > To: Mark Knecht > Cc: Rosegarden-Users > Subject: Re: [Rosegarden-user] Installing > > > Mark Knecht wrote: > > I believe a commit was made just last > > night by Kai (with Paul's blessing) that allows just that. > > Is this the thing about ignoring xruns? Sounds fantastic to me. > > > Chris > > |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2003-01-28 17:28:32
|
Mark Knecht wrote: > The right answer for him, if he would have responded at all, would > have been a soft spoken person who asked what distro he was running > and then pointed him to the right apt/rpm/whatever packages. Well, it's certainly true that his original email provoked an unhelpful tone of voice in most of the replies: practically all of us started by sarcastically saying "yes, of course it's deliberate" -- but then, the original email contained very little except that suggestion that it was all a deliberate plot. > That said, I've often said that programmers don't realize just how > frustrating building this code for non-programmers is. I think it was > you Chris that blew up the other day about some piece of code that > wouldn't compile? Yeah, it was me. And I think we _do_ often realize how difficult it can be; I think we're pretty curmudgeonly types. I don't think any of the core Rosegarden developers enjoys trying to build stuff any more -- we're old enough and tired enough to have simply had enough of that crap. But equally, although I was getting pretty frustrated trying to build MusE, I would never have responded by rushing off to the MusE mailing-list and accusing the developers of deliberately trying to ruin my day. (I might do that with the developers of autoconf, but that's a different kind of long-standing grudge.) Similarly, I've never managed to build Lilypond-1.7 -- so I don't use it. My distro has a rather older version, and I just stick with that. I haven't the time or energy to do otherwise. And that's fine, because the distro includes practically all the stuff I want anyway -- a few months late, but that's the price you pay for refusing to spend your time learning how to build it. I think the point is that there's a degree of understanding needed both ways. Programmers obviously need to understand which things are hard for users, but equally users can't assume that programmers can do everything, and need to understand that most free-software projects _are_ just programmers, unless people like them chip in and help out. Making an application easy to install is _hard_, and costs money as well as time (to ensure you have a reasonable set of test systems). It's hard even on Windows, but practically every software company employs people just to do it, which is not an option for us -- and most of them use InstallShield. And solving someone's problem with an application that won't install, without any information at all about where it was being installed to or how, is not just hard, it's impossible. We're people too, dammit. Anyway, enough of this... UNTIL NEXT TIME!! Chris |
From: Kevin D. <ke...@do...> - 2003-01-28 19:46:49
|
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 4:50 pm, Chris Cannam wrote: > I think the point is that there's a degree of understanding needed > both ways. Programmers obviously need to understand which things > are hard for users, but equally users can't assume that programmers > can do everything, and need to understand that most free-software > projects _are_ just programmers, unless people like them chip in > and help out. I read this thread with some interest. I've been using Linux for 3 years now, mostly for web-design/PHP, but I still find things difficult to install - that's why I use SuSE (basically, I'm paying them to make it easy). Linux is neck-and-neck with the Wiindows desktop on almost everything now, but it is still trailing on multimedia - it just isn't as easy to use yet. I think it will be neck-and-neck even there in about 12-18 months, though. So if I was really focussed on music, as opposed to doodling, I have to say that I would stick with Windows - on Linux I would have to be prepared for disappointment, frustration, a certain amount of nugatory timespend, etc. I don't really understand why the original poster can't see this - he's obviously pretty new to Linux, and he should be able to see from what is not on his MDK discs that multimedia stuff is still pretty leading edge. I was very impressed with the progress RG2 has made - I tried it from the SuSE 7.3 discs a while ago, and it was unuseable. This time, I installed it from the 8.1 discs, then downloaded the rpm from app.kde.com and upgraded, and it actually worked quite nicely (until I tried entering something directly in the note editor, when it kept segfaulting). One thing I found really helpful was the docs on the site - iiwusynth I had never heard tell of, and the tutorial was great for getting me up and running. So as regards docs, and the general response of the developers to questions on this list, I think RG sets a high standard for other open-source projects, especially multimedia ones. I just wish I knew a bit more about programming, like you guys, or music hardware, like Marc, and I might be able to contribute something! So I think you shouldn't take the original post too seriously - even if he'd got it installed, the guy would probably have been incensed about something else. Just keep plodding on the way you're doing (perhaps adding a few more docs along the way), and in about a year's time you should have a very good sequencer package for newby dabblers like myself. All the best Kevin |
From: Silvan <dmm...@us...> - 2003-01-28 05:42:15
|
On Monday 27 January 2003 07:53 am, Mark Knecht wrote: > build process. Don't know if you guys can make that easier somehow, but > that would be my only input. Automation, automation, automation... I haven't manually compiled RG in = ages. I wrote a pretty useful script called get-cvs that works for almost any=20 sourceforge-hosted project. There are problems galore with the=20 implementation, such as the need to have a separate directory for every=20 project, with a separate repository.conf file for each directory, and the= =20 fact that you still have to press enter twice (on the CVS password, and o= n=20 the "is this package looking OK?" from checkinstall) but it works. Once you configure the thing you want to grab from CVS correctly, it hand= les=20 getting it (from scratch, or an update) and then building the thing, then= =20 runs checkinstall to make Debian packages for it and switches the old for= the=20 new, leaving the old ones in a cache, so it's easy to go back to yesterda= y's=20 CVS build when someone fucks something up. Could be worked to do stuff with RPM too, but currently it only works for= =20 Debian because it uses dpkg -l|grep something|gawk something or other to=20 figure out the name of the currently-installed package. Would need to be= rpm=20 -qa|grep|gawk whatever and the gawk would need to grab info from a differ= ent=20 column most likely. I don't have an RPM-based system to test, so I've le= ft=20 it hard coded for the world's finest distro. I've been meaning to Xdialog the thing to make it all friendly and stuff,= but=20 anyway, it works. I'll send it to you if you want to play with it. --=20 Michael McIntyre USDA zone 6b in SW VA, USA Silvan <dmm...@us...> Linux Druid ----------[ registered Linux user #243621 ]--------- http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/index.html |
From: eric d. <ed...@te...> - 2003-01-27 15:31:58
|
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 05:36, Shane Semler wrote: Why does installing software on Linux have to be so difficult? Do Linux developers make it hard on purpose? I know not every Linux app is as difficult to install, Mozilla for example. It automatically installs itself on just about any Linux distro. Why can't Rosegarden be like that? Rosegarden is an EXCELLENT software and I install it with one simple command : >apt-get install rosegarden4 What's wrong? :) Ciao, Eric ===== Shane Semler everdark http://everdark.deviantart.com http://www.watchitman.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-user mailing list Ros...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user -- Eric Devost ed...@te... |
From: Mark K. <mk...@co...> - 2003-01-27 15:46:56
|
If he is a Redhat users and if he is on the Planet flow, then this will = work. If not, then he should be! ;-) -----Original Message----- From: ros...@li... = [mailto:ros...@li...]On Behalf Of eric = devost Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 7:23 AM To: ros...@li... Subject: Re: [Rosegarden-user] Installing On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 05:36, Shane Semler wrote:=20 Why does installing software on Linux have to be so difficult? Do Linux developers make it hard on purpose? I know not every Linux app is as difficult to install, Mozilla for example. It automatically installs itself on just about any Linux distro. Why can't Rosegarden be like that? Rosegarden is an EXCELLENT software and I install it with one simple = command :=20 >apt-get install rosegarden4=20 What's wrong? :)=20 Ciao,=20 Eric=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Shane Semler everdark http://everdark.deviantart.com http://www.watchitman.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =3D Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-user mailing list Ros...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user --=20 Eric Devost ed...@te... |
From: <th...@ho...> - 2003-01-27 16:01:50
|
If you really want to make a music station the easy way check this out http://lulu.esm.rochester.edu/kevine/turnkey/home.html Only for Mandrake 9.0 . It is a install package that includes this (116mb) * ALSA <http://www.alsa-project.org> - the latest, greatest audio API for Linux * Alsaplayer <http://www.alsaplayer.org/docs.php3> - a very nice player with some added functionality for visualization and playlisting. * Ardour <http://ardour.sourceforge.net/> - Paul Barton Davis' hardisk recorder/mixer, currently in a state of heavy development. * Audacity <http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/contents.htm> - a fast multi-platform editor with some great features, including mutlitrack capabilities. * Cecilia <http://cecilia.sourceforge.net/man/> - more than just a graphical front end to the csound engine...a rich sound manipulation environment. * Ceres <http://www.notam02.no/notam02/prod-prg-cereshelp.html> - Oyvind Hammer's original app on linux. * Ceres3 <http://www.notam02.no/notam02/prod-prg-cereshelp.html> - the latest, greatest incarnation of the ceres spectral editor by. * Csound <http://www.lakewoodsound.com/csound/hypertext/manual.htm> - a central audio package at ECMC, richly expanded with dozens of scripts and templates. * DAP <http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/%7Erichardk/> - Richard Kent's port of the classic SGI version. Has some nice dsp functions as well. * Ecasound <http://www.wakkanet.fi/%7Ekaiv/ecasound/Documentation/> - an amazingly deep hard-disk recording and playing/routing app from Kai Vehmanen. * *gMetronome* - a simple graphical metronome (no audio) * Hdparm <http://www.linux.org/apps/AppId_2497.html> - utility for optimizing IDE hard drive and CDROM parameters/options * JACK <http://lulu.esm.rochester.edu/kevine/turnkey/%28Empty%20Reference%= 21%29> - the jack audio connection kit for professional level audio under Linux * LADSPA <http://www.ladspa.org/>- a plugins package, including the CMT set, and a number of others. * Mammut <http://www.notam02.no/notam02/prod-prg-mammuthelp.html> - a tidy and fun analysis/resynthesis tool with limited features but often suprising results. * Mix <http://www.notam02.no/%7Eoyvindha/mixhelp.html> - the NoTAM 9 channel mixer we all grew up with, with some welcome additions. * MixMagic <http://mixmagic.sourceforge.net/> - a GNOME mixing application with some useful features. * MiXViews <http://www.ccmrc.ucsb.edu/%7Edoug/htmls/MiXViews.html> - a powerful editor from Doug Scott, includes editing tools for PVC and LPC analysis data. * ngen <http://mustec.bgsu.edu/%7Emkuehn/ngen/man/ngenman.htm> - Mikel Kuehn's new event preprocessor for Csound. * PVC <http://www.esm.rochester.edu/onlinedocs/PVC.3.0.README.html> - Paul Koonce's phase vocoding package, extended <http://www.esm.rochester.edu/onlinedocs/pvc.ecmc.html> through a set of Allan Schindler's scripts. * Normalize <http://lulu.esm.rochester.edu/kevine/turnkey/%28Empty%20Reference%= 21%29> - a utility for batch normalization of levels in a soundfile * RipperX <http://lulu.esm.rochester.edu/kevine/turnkey/%28Empty%20Reference%= 21%29>- cd ripping and file encoding (mp3, ogg) front end for cdparanoia, lame and others * Rt <http://www.music.princeton.edu/winham/PPSK/rthelp.html> - Paul Lansky's scripted mixer, ported by Doug Scott. * RTCmix - <http://www.music.columbia.edu/cmix/>The Columbia/Princeton extension of its Cmix music composition "language". * RTMix - <http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/%7Eico/index.html>Ivica Ico Bukvik's exciting performance/real-time tool. * Score11 <http://www.esm.rochester.edu/score11/score-11doc.html> - Alec Brinkman's very flexible Csound score preprocessor, plus a handy Score11 quickstart. <http://lulu.esm.rochester.edu/kevine/turnkey/score11-qs.html> * Shorten <http://www.hornig.net/shorten.html> - a program for lossless audio compression. * Snd <http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/software/snd/snd/snd.html> - Bill Schottstaedt's everything editor. Includes support for 24bit/96K and so much more. * Sweep <http://sweep.sourceforge.net/tutorials/quick_tour/> - an amazing editor (with "Scrubby" inside) from Conrad Parker. * Wavesurfer <http://www.speech.kth.se/wavesurfer/man.html> - one of the cleanest, fastest editors for linux, from K=E5re Sj=F6lander an= d Jonas Beskow * xplay <http://havana.iwsp.com/xplay/xplay.man.html> - very handy, can open in multiple instances for quick test mixes (with the ECMC "players" script). * xsox <http://win2linux.net/xsox.html> - a graphical front end for the ubiquitous audio conversion utility "sox". Sorry no rosegarden in this package /thac |