I have a question...
coryisatm at nc.rr.com
Tue Sep 4 00:58:53 BST 2007
So I'm guessing you have nothing to say about the fact that the ML and
IRC channels are what you guys make it? :)
Hartmut Noack wrote:
> Cory K. schrieb:
> > It was talked about in #ubuntu as well as on UbuntuForums. We couldn't
> > update the site, it was down. ;)
> A site, that can be viewed in the browser is not exactly down is´nt it?
> Also I must say, that I have a few sites myself - downtime last 2 years
> about 10 minutes for a dist-upgrade. Of course you have more visitors
> then the 10000 or so that I have in my logs/month but you also have the
> infrastructure of an industry-grade IT-system so downtimes for days or
> weeks seem kinda strange in my ignorant eye...
I don't know what you mean. It was completely down. Its up now. (though
we need to fix a bit) I don't see the issue. We have to fix some things
before we post anything to the site.
> >> Still I vote for a special Ubuntustudio-Forum also. The normal
> >> Ubuntuforums are as unusable to maintain a fluent communication
> with the
> >> users
> > Sorry. This decision was made to keep closer to the established Ubuntu
> > community.
> The Ubuntustudio-Forum was an integrated part of these forums.
> Music-Production is not desktop enough to be of much interest for the
> established users of any computersystem geared towards desktop-users. To
> be perfectly honest: as a music-maker I do not feel home amongst the
> vast majority of people that only want to know, how to connect their
> ipods and how to play encrypted DVDs...
I'm sorry you feel this way.
> >> as the Canonincal Repositories are inadequate to host all needed
> >> packages in versions that are recent enough to be usable (Ardour needs
> >> to be upgraded every single time its sources are upgraded by Pauls
> >> same thing with Rosegarden, Muse, you name it...).
> > This is not possible as packages need to go through testing.
> Testing is most important - that is agreed. So if one tests Ardour 2.0.2
> he/she will find dozens of bugs some of them severe, that are fixed in
> 2.0.4/5 - so having a more stable app in the repos would be quite okay,
> would it be not?
> > Blindly
> > uploading updates is not the way. Also, things can take a little longer
> > because we sync our packages from Debian.
> Of course it would not be wise, to have a new package of Ardour 2 days
> after every given source-release but in 2-3 weeks this could be done I
> think. To wait half a year without getting the bugs fixed is no option
> for productive users.
> Whatif a crash-bug would be found in apache? Would there not be an
> upgrade before the next official release?
Though your reasoning is sound, its just not the way things work.
There's a chain the packages must go through. If we build bleeding-edge
packages it benifits less users than if that package was in Debian then
> >> So again: is there need for help? I would be honoured to give a
> hand :-)
> >> best regards
> >> HZN
> > Not at the moment. We have things under control. Just because you don't
> > see the work, doesn't mean its not being done. :D
> Visibility is communication, communication is life - that is the way of
> the web.
> best reg.
Just trust in that we have things under control. ;)
More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-users