More > JRiver Media Center 21 for Linux
Simplest version for PC that plays well with JRiver MC ?
mwillems:
--- Quote from: kstuart on June 05, 2016, 07:45:36 pm ---quote: "I think you might've missed part of my observation: people behave very differently when something is their actual job than when it is a hobby. One noted developer has called OSS development the "Cascade of Attention Deficit Teenagers" development model. As I noted, small groups can be great when it's their job and/or they're focused on a manageable task. A large task (whole OS) combined with a small volunteer force trying to do it in their spare time, is not even remotely comparable to a professional group of similar size performing a comparatively small task (media player)."
I think you've just argued against Linux itself, in favor of Windows or Mac. :)
--- End quote ---
There are literally over a thousand volunteer software developers working on Debian, and that's not counting the people who write documentation, do debugging, host servers, etc. It's not a couple of guys in their garage. You can overcome the inherent limitations of a volunteer-only effort by having a large number of volunteers.
--- Quote ---Debian and Mint are both volunteer projects. Linux itself was originally a volunteer project, but it has become so important to a number of companies that currently 75% of the code is written by paid developers. Of course, Ubuntu is a project of one of those companies (Canonical). So, overall Linux is a mix of volunteers and paid developers. And...
--- End quote ---
Yes that's exactly my point. Some combination of paid staff and/or a large number of volunteers is necessary for a modern operating system. The larger Linux distros have one or both. I don't think that more people and/or more paid staff necessarily scale up indefinitely, but if you have neither paid staff nor a large number of volunteers working on a modern OS, expect trouble.
--- Quote ---quote: "Stability, better privacy, and better data integrity are things that you don't notice by design; you only notice their absence. Many of the differences are about managing certain kinds of risk, which can be hard to quantify."
I found the following from Wikipedia interesting on that:
Kernel code quality
In an interview with German newspaper Zeit Online in November 2011, Linus Torvalds stated that Linux has become "too complex" and he was concerned that developers would not be able to find their way through the software anymore. He complained that even subsystems have become very complex and he told the publication that he is "afraid of the day" when there will be an error that "cannot be evaluated anymore."[12]
Andrew Morton, one of Linux kernel lead developers, explains that many bugs identified in Linux are never fixed:[13]
Q: Is it your opinion that the quality of the kernel is in decline? Most developers seem to be pretty sanguine about the overall quality problem. Assuming there's a difference of opinion here, where do you think it comes from? How can we resolve it?
A: I used to think [code quality] was in decline, and I think that I might think that it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix.
Con Kolivas, a former Linux kernel developer, compared some OpenSolaris kernel code to Linux code and was surprised at the difference in code quality:[14]
The summary of my impression [after reading the OpenSolaris code] was that I was... surprised....the [OpenSolaris] code, as I saw it, was neat. Real neat. Extremely neat. In fact, I found it painful to read after a while. It was so neatly laid out that I found myself admiring it. It seems to have been built like an aircraft. It has everything that opens and shuts, has code for just about everything I've ever seen considered on a scheduler, and it's all neatly laid out in clean code and even comments. It also appears to have been coded with an awful lot of effort to ensure it's robust and measurable, with checking and tracing elements at every corner. I started to feel a little embarrassed by what we have as our own [Linux] kernel. The more I looked at the [OpenSolaris] code, the more it felt like it pretty much did everything the Linux kernel has been trying to do for ages. Not only that, but it's built like an aircraft, whereas ours looks like a garage job with duct tape by comparison....[OpenSolaris] looks like an excellent design for a completely different purpose. It's built like a commercial design for commercial purposes that have very different requirements than what most of us use Linux for, but it does appear to have been done so very well. It looks like a ** Star Destroyer, and the Linux kernel (scheduler) suddenly looks like the Millennium Falcon. Real fast, but held together with duct tape, and ready to explode at any minute.
Theo de Raadt, founder of OpenBSD, compares OpenBSD development process to Linux:
"Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run.” As for Linus Torvalds, who created Linux and oversees development, De Raadt says, “I don’t know what [Linus] focus is at all anymore, but it isn’t quality.”[15]
--- End quote ---
Those quotes don't really address the points I made. I said that Linux is (once configured) more stable, more respectful of a users privacy, and allows for better protection of data integrity than Windows. I don't pretend it's perfect, or that Windows doesn't have it's own advantages. Those advantages just aren't in system stability, user privacy, or data integrity. One key difference between Linux and Windows is that people can look at the Linux code and make critical comments, which often produce improvements, or just fix things themselves (like Con Kolivas has done on several occasions). No one who doesn't work at Microsoft can see the Windows kernel or the various software stacks, so there's no way of knowing if it's better designed except by it's outputs (which are objectively worse in some ways and better in others).
I think this has gone about as far as it's likely to go productively, and is quite off topic by now. I apologize for my part in de-railing the discussion, and I'll show myself out.
kstuart:
I'll leave the tangential sub-thread alone - we've both made our points.
Meanwhile, I looked further at the Audiophile version of Arch Linux, and it does resemble your remarks about a undermanned project. There has been no release for a year, and one Forum mod admitted to not having enough time to devote to the project. From reading the Forum a little bit, it looks tricky to install, which seems unfortunate given the lack of Forum participation. So, I am unlikely to mess with that.
In contrast, Linux Lite has significantly more participation, has a release a few days ago, and installed in a easy and seamless fashion (probably the easiest and quickest OS install I have done, which is remarkable considering I allowed it do its own automatic partition-shrinking.)
In the last month, it has gotten as many hits at DistroWatch than Arch Linux, and over a longer period, has significantly more than Xubuntu (Ubuntu with Xfce). So, it seems to be one of the larger distributions after the top 3 of Ubuntu, Debian and Mint (perhaps we can call those "medium size projects").
Quote: "If you're looking for something that looks and acts a bit more like android, try the Gnome desktop; it won't run particularly well on very old hardware, but is very, very different than Windows. "
I'll give that a try using a Live CD run...
BryanC:
--- Quote from: kstuart on June 05, 2016, 08:25:56 pm ---I'll leave the tangential sub-thread alone - we've both made our points.
Meanwhile, I looked further at the Audiophile version of Arch Linux, and it does resemble your remarks about a undermanned project. There has been no release for a year, and one Forum mod admitted to not having enough time to devote to the project. From reading the Forum a little bit, it looks tricky to install, which seems unfortunate given the lack of Forum participation. So, I am unlikely to mess with that.
In contrast, Linux Lite has significantly more participation, has a release a few days ago, and installed in a easy and seamless fashion (probably the easiest and quickest OS install I have done, which is remarkable considering I allowed it do its own automatic partition-shrinking.)
In the last month, it has gotten as many hits at DistroWatch than Arch Linux, and over a longer period, has significantly more than Xubuntu (Ubuntu with Xfce). So, it seems to be one of the larger distributions after the top 3 of Ubuntu, Debian and Mint (perhaps we can call those "medium size projects").
--- End quote ---
The first rule of picking a linux distro is to ignore the distrowatch 'popularity' list. It's for advertising purposes, and the website owner has admitted as much. On top of that, people that have chosen a distro don't spend their time browsing distrowatch (do you really think Linux Mint is the most popular distro?--preposterous). What you should be looking at are the archives and activity level of the distro's forums, bug reporting system, longevity, backing organization, etc. For instance, the Ubuntu forums have 2.1 million threads compared to 3000 threads in the Linux Lite forums. There are 2 million members on the Ubuntu forums versus 1000 for Linux Lite.
The advice you've received in this thread thus far from numerous posters is spot on. Linux Lite is just another of a gazillion debian/ubuntu spinoffs that flies by night. Stick to one of the big distributions that is backed by a company or an organization or you will get hung out to dry. Not a matter of if, but when. Linux Lite is led by one guy. What happens when he gets sick, bored, loses his job, etc? Companies can survive that but not small projects like an Ubuntu spinoff. You can make your own decision but you did ask the forum so I feel obligated to warn you.
aoqw76:
I would say xubuntu. It's pretty light on resources, and as far as i can recall, did not require any fiddling to get jriver mc installed and working.
My other choice would have been lubuntu but i couldnt get remote desktop to work (as in, i could not connect to it remotely from windows over vnc) so went for xubuntu instead and that just worked.
I have used mc for linux since a version existed, and while it's true the early versions were temperamental, it was not an os issue. Latest version is very stable and i leave it running 24/7.
kstuart:
--- Quote from: BryanC on June 05, 2016, 09:27:40 pm --- Stick to one of the big distributions that is backed by a company or an organization or you will get hung out to dry.
--- End quote ---
You've convinced me, your logic is perfect, and that means installing Windows 7 - and with Windows Media Player instead of MC21. :D
A Forum with 2 million members is essentially equivalent to the Internet. I can jump up and down in such a Forum and be unnoticed for 10 years. In a group of 2 million members, everyone is a stranger, and status competition becomes the order of the day.
1,000 members is plenty.
--- Quote ---Not a matter of if, but when. Linux Lite is led by one guy. What happens when he gets sick, bored, loses his job, etc?
--- End quote ---
* Format the partition
* Download an iso of a different distribution
* Install it
More evidence that Linux has the same ridiculous issues as Windows:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/03/ubuntu-drops-amd-catalyst-fglrx-driver-16-04
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version