On 2023-09-02, Edmund wrote:
> On 9/2/23 17:53, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Nic wrote:
>>> I think it is too complex for a w7 vm
>>
>> While I'm not a 'fan' of VMs, my 'taste' is mainly because of that need
>> to run two different OSes to run one application, but...
>>
>> ... it seems to me that given sufficient ram, so that you have enough
>> ram to 'throw away' some running 'the other' OS and its application,
>> namely the VM, then one should be able to 'get the job done'.
>>
>> That is, 'sufficient' ram to run a linux + VM + Win7 + Acoustica and its
>> fodder.
>>
>> Personally, I would run the Acoustica on a W7 box w/ only 8G ram.
>>
>> Acoustica says that it wants a machine w/ 4G ram.
>>
>>
> Apart from that there is a much better way to run VM's, I am sure you
> guys support more linux flavors in order to prevent companies will
> release a linux version of their products.

Ehh, not so much.

Take Debian and its derivatives -- they're all (basically) identical
where it matters (filesystem layout, available libraries, etc), and only
tend to differ with "user-facing" things like the available DEs (or even
just the "default" one(s)).

Sure, Debian itself is slower than molasses when it comes to updating
some things, like kernels or libc, but even there, it's not like "...
for Ubuntu" *deb packages are guaranteed to not work (although they can
be problematic, sure).

Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 9/4/23 14:53, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2023-09-02, Edmund wrote:
>> On 9/2/23 17:53, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Nic wrote:
>>>> I think it is too complex for a w7 vm
>>>
>>> While I'm not a 'fan' of VMs, my 'taste' is mainly because of that need
>>> to run two different OSes to run one application, but...
>>>
>>> ... it seems to me that given sufficient ram, so that you have enough
>>> ram to 'throw away' some running 'the other' OS and its application,
>>> namely the VM, then one should be able to 'get the job done'.
>>>
>>> That is, 'sufficient' ram to run a linux + VM + Win7 + Acoustica and its
>>> fodder.
>>>
>>> Personally, I would run the Acoustica on a W7 box w/ only 8G ram.
>>>
>>> Acoustica says that it wants a machine w/ 4G ram.
>>>
>>>
>> Apart from that there is a much better way to run VM's, I am sure you
>> guys support more linux flavors in order to prevent companies will
>> release a linux version of their products.
>
> Ehh, not so much.
>
> Take Debian and its derivatives -- they're all (basically) identical
> where it matters (filesystem layout, available libraries, etc), and only
> tend to differ with "user-facing" things like the available DEs (or even
> just the "default" one(s)).
>
> Sure, Debian itself is slower than molasses when it comes to updating
> some things, like kernels or libc, but even there, it's not like "...
> for Ubuntu" *deb packages are guaranteed to not work (although they can
> be problematic, sure).
>
> Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).

Yesss lets trough in a couple more incompatible solutions for this
stupidity!
>
>
>
>

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
> On 9/4/23 14:53, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> [...]
>> Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).
>
> Yesss lets trough in a couple more incompatible solutions for this
> stupidity!

"Incompatible" with what? Flatpak / AppImage are perfectly compatible
and mostly self-contained executables ...

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 9/5/23 12:21, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
>> On 9/4/23 14:53, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).
>>
>> Yesss lets trough in a couple more incompatible solutions for this
>> stupidity!
>
> "Incompatible" with what? Flatpak / AppImage are perfectly compatible
> and mostly self-contained executables ...

Well, for starters it is not ONE but two independent "solutions", the
more the better :-)
I think that both letting go the principle of the OS which uses common
dependencies creating more data in the process.
I wonder why it is so hard to accept the bloody obvious that some
structure is endlessly more efficient and better for each and everyone.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
> On 9/5/23 12:21, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
>>> On 9/4/23 14:53, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).
>>>
>>> Yesss lets trough in a couple more incompatible solutions for this
>>> stupidity!
>>
>> "Incompatible" with what? Flatpak / AppImage are perfectly compatible
>> and mostly self-contained executables ...
>
> Well, for starters it is not ONE but two independent "solutions", the
> more the better :-)

So (as a developer), pick one. Nobody says you have to make both.

> I think that both letting go the principle of the OS which uses common
> dependencies creating more data in the process.
> I wonder why it is so hard to accept the bloody obvious that some
> structure is endlessly more efficient and better for each and everyone.

These two options *are* creating the structure for a release option that
is decoupled from "common dependencies" that differ between distros.

It's like cars -- we have ford, chevy, subaru, toyota, etc. all making
them -- maybe they should all stop "wasting time" and just merge into a
single car company...

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 9/1/23 9:55 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Nic wrote:
>> And so a Linux User must pass up this really nice music software.
>
> Or alternatively, he could use some other really nice music software,
> or he could run a v of Win in a linux VM, or he could have more than
> one device to include a device which was Mac or Win.
>
> Personally, I have a lot of 'devices' around here. 5 in this room, 4
> desktops and 1 old RPi 3B, 1 laptop in the kitchen TV area, 1 laptop
> in the living room TV area, and 1 very ancient laptop in the bedroom
> area I never turn on anymore.  Some of them are capable of running W7
> and is the 'most used Win' but not that much, 1 is capable of running
> W10 but I never do, and 1 runs Chrome OS.
>
> My understanding is that the Standard acoustica for Win is about $60,
> while the Premium ed. is $300.
>
> It isn't likely I would be purchasing either of those licenses even
> tho' I could run them on a W7 or W10 machine.  Would you? Actually my
> interest is so low that I wouldn't even test the downloadable free trial.
>
>
https://store.acoustica.com/mixcraft
Mixcraft is the software $79-149.

On 9/1/23 9:55 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Nic wrote:
>> And so a Linux User must pass up this really nice music software.
>
> Or alternatively, he could use some other really nice music software,
> or he could run a v of Win in a linux VM, or he could have more than
> one device to include a device which was Mac or Win.
>
> Personally, I have a lot of 'devices' around here. 5 in this room, 4
> desktops and 1 old RPi 3B, 1 laptop in the kitchen TV area, 1 laptop
> in the living room TV area, and 1 very ancient laptop in the bedroom
> area I never turn on anymore.  Some of them are capable of running W7
> and is the 'most used Win' but not that much, 1 is capable of running
> W10 but I never do, and 1 runs Chrome OS.
>
> My understanding is that the Standard acoustica for Win is about $60,
> while the Premium ed. is $300.
>
> It isn't likely I would be purchasing either of those licenses even
> tho' I could run them on a W7 or W10 machine.  Would you? Actually my
> interest is so low that I wouldn't even test the downloadable free trial.
>
>
https://store.acoustica.com/mixcraft
Mixcraft is the software $79-149.

On 9/5/23 14:56, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
>> On 9/5/23 12:21, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/23 14:53, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).
>>>>
>>>> Yesss lets trough in a couple more incompatible solutions for this
>>>> stupidity!
>>>
>>> "Incompatible" with what? Flatpak / AppImage are perfectly compatible
>>> and mostly self-contained executables ...
>>
>> Well, for starters it is not ONE but two independent "solutions", the
>> more the better :-)
>
> So (as a developer), pick one. Nobody says you have to make both.
>
>> I think that both letting go the principle of the OS which uses common
>> dependencies creating more data in the process.
>> I wonder why it is so hard to accept the bloody obvious that some
>> structure is endlessly more efficient and better for each and everyone.
>
> These two options *are* creating the structure for a release option that
> is decoupled from "common dependencies" that differ between distros.
>
> It's like cars -- we have ford, chevy, subaru, toyota, etc. all making
> them -- maybe they should all stop "wasting time" and just merge into a
> single car company...

Yup explain it away no matter how silly your arguments are.
I already gave up and understand there is never ever anything going to
change in religions.
There is one more thing I going to say about your utterly absurd analogy
with CARS.
Freedom of choice, so why not make the brake pedal on the right hand
side, the manual gears with an improved layout with the reverse in the
place of the third gear, the 2nd on the place of the 6st...
And if the steering wheel is turned left the wheels are going to the
right hand side.
When it is appropriate ( funny) I will make fun of the ever growing
number of incompatible releases with each a number of incompatible DE's.
Until then, BYE!

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 9/5/23 10:26 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On 9/5/23 14:56, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
>>> On 9/5/23 12:21, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-05, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/23 14:53, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Then again, there's appimage nowadays (or flatpak).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesss lets trough in a couple more incompatible solutions for this
>>>>> stupidity!
>>>>
>>>> "Incompatible" with what?  Flatpak / AppImage are perfectly compatible
>>>> and mostly self-contained executables ...
>>>
>>> Well, for starters it is not ONE but two independent "solutions", the
>>> more the better :-)
>>
>> So (as a developer), pick one.  Nobody says you have to make both.
>>
>>> I think that both letting go the principle of the OS which uses common
>>> dependencies creating more data in the process.
>>> I wonder why it is so hard to accept the bloody obvious that some
>>> structure is endlessly more efficient and better for each and everyone.
>>
>> These two options *are* creating the structure for a release option that
>> is decoupled from "common dependencies" that differ between distros.
>>
>> It's like cars -- we have ford, chevy, subaru, toyota, etc. all making
>> them -- maybe they should all stop "wasting time" and just merge into a
>> single car company...
>
> Yup explain it away no matter how silly your arguments are.
> I already gave up and understand there is never ever anything going to
> change in religions.
> There is one more thing I going to say about your utterly absurd
> analogy with CARS.
> Freedom of choice, so why not make the brake pedal on the right hand
> side, the manual gears with an improved layout with the reverse in the
> place of the third gear, the 2nd on the place of the 6st...
> And if the steering wheel is turned left the wheels are going to the
> right hand side.
> When it is appropriate ( funny) I will make fun of the ever growing
> number of incompatible releases with each a number of incompatible DE's.
> Until then, BYE!
>
>
It would be a problem to have to re learn certain conventions, but for
the most part similar softwares stick to similar tasks, and I assume
most distros use the same unix based commands. It would be interesting
to see which commands have been tampered with in Linux Mint that you are
aware of.