Ubuntu Studio 64 bit & program availability

Sat Jan 15 07:02:18 UTC 2011

On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 22:11 -0500, Mike Holstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Ralf Mardorf
> <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>         
>         On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 03:05 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>         > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 09:26 +0000, Yorvyk wrote:
>         > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:57:40 -0800
>         > > Casey Forslund <cforslund at gmail.com> wrote:
>         > >
>         > > > Hi all,
>         > > >
>         > > > Before I decided to switch over to Linux/Ubuntu, I was
>         contemplating an
>         > > > upgrade to a full 64 bit system. The one thing that
>         stopped me was the lack
>         > > > of native 64 bit software in the Windows world (lots
>         could be run in
>         > > > emulation mode or whatever, but it wasn't true 64 bit).
>         My question is: How
>         > > > does the 64 bit transition work in Ubuntuland, i.e. will
>         I be able to use
>         > > > all of the programs that come pre-installed with Ubuntu
>         studio, and would
>         > > > they be true/native 64 bit, able to fully utilize 64 bit
>         hardware etc?
>         > > >
>         > > Everything in the Ubuntu 64 bit repo is 64 bit, so will
>         utilise your 64 bit hardware.  The only area where 64 bit apps
>         are occasionally missing are proprietary drivers for some
>         hardware eg some wireless card/dongles.  These are easily
>         avoided though.  Whether things will run faster/better is
>         another matter.
>         > >
>         > > > If this is the wrong place to discuss this, just let me
>         know and I can go to
>         > > > the forums with this instead.
>         > > >
>         > > > Thanks in advance,
>         > > >
>         > > > Casey
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > --
>         > > Steve Cook (Yorvyk)
>         > >
>         > > http://lubuntu.net
>         >
>         >
>         > Yes, 64 bit on Linux is 64 bit and at least on my machine it
>         has got
>         > advantages. JACK1 isn't ok on my 64 bit machine, hence I use
>         JACK2. On
>         > 64 bit Ubuntu Linux you can run some 32 bit software in a 32
>         bit chroot
>         > or some other software by using a command to add 32 bit
>         libs. On 64 bit
>         > Suse Linux the design is a little bit different, here it's
>         able even to
>         > use some proprietary 32 bit drivers, e.g. the LightScribe
>         drivers.
>         > I've got issues with VSTs on my 64 bit Linux, but on 64 bit
>         wineasio I
>         > was able to run VSTs, while IMO wineasio is unusable
>         regarding to
>         > jitter. I'm not missing VSTs, but it's because I don't need
>         a lot of
>         > virtual stuff.
>         > If you need some loudness war FX, real vocoders, Auto-Tune,
>         perfect ARP
>         > synth emulations, a synth choir that will sing your lyrics,
>         a classical
>         > orchestra, a superguitar FX rack and some other stuff and
>         you shouldn't
>         > care about ethics, Linux isn't the right choice. At least
>         the loudness
>         > war can be done with Linux too, by using JAMin, but JAMin
>         needs a lot of
>         > resources, so this can become an issue.
>         > The only thing I'm missing on Linux is a soundfont and gig
>         player with
>         > integrated editor and proper timing for external MIDI
>         equipment and
>         > sometimes an orchestra emulation. I also won't do live
>         recordings with
>         > Linux for money.
>         > At home I'm using Linux only, but even at home I do have a
>         lot of
>         > external audio equipment.
>         > YMMV Ralf
>         
>         
>         PS:
>         
>         Is professional audio/ video sync to external devices
>         important for you?
>         Or poly-rhythm by a MIDI sequencer? This can't be done with
>         Linux.
>         OTOH, on other OSs expensive hardware and expensive software
>         is needed
>         to realise things that aren't able with Linux. Most of this
>         stuff isn't
>         FLOSS or if you don't care for ethics, it's also not available
>         as crack.
>         
>         
>         --
>         Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
>         Ubuntu-Studio-users at lists.ubuntu.com
>         Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
>         
> 
> the only software that i miss in my 64bit install is lightscribe.
> plenty of workarounds for that (chroot, VM, dual-booting, bothering
> the vendor til a native app comes while using lightscribe on another
> machine running 32bit)... would i install 64bit on that machine next
> time? i think so.

I guess we don't need LightScribe every day and because using
LightScribe takes minutes, it shouldn't be a problem to restart the
computer and boot another Linux, which just takes some seconds.

On a default Suse 64-bit the 32-bit LightScrib driver is working, but I
prefer Debian based Linux. Hard disks aren't expensive anymore and a
multi-boot is easy to do.

I don't conceal that I'm not fine with some issues for different Linux
distributions, e.g. I don't like the 'mistaken policy' regarding to
realtime kernels by Ubuntu ;) and btw. it's always possible to break a
Linux when servicing a Linux, so beside restoring a Linux by a backup, a
multi-boot can be very helpful.

FWIW people also need to use multi-boot for Windows only installs. A
Windows DAW can be damaged by drivers for the Windows Office Suite, by
viruses when connected to the Internet etc., while I never heard that
Office software on Linux ever damaged a Linux DAW and I never noticed a
virus on my Linuxes.

IMO there's no OS, neither Linux, nor Windows, that will fit to all
needs, just by one install and multi-boots for Linux are easier to do,
but for Windows.

+ 2 cents