[PD] Red Hat 9 and PD - RH9 is rubbish

Ed Kelly loneshark at btopenworld.com
Wed Feb 25 14:29:37 CET 2004

Can anyone recommend a good, current Linux distribution for running PD? I've
had it with Red Hat!

By the way, your comments have all been very helpful, thanks :) Here's what
I had to do - although I won't be recommending RH9 to anyone!
After re-installing Red Hat 9 with text-based login, I found that the
/etc/sysconfig/desktop file is where the default wm is set. After installing
WindoMaker (it doesn't come with Red Hat 9!) I set it to:

WindowMaker then became my default wm, the alsa drivers compiled (1.0.2 libs
didn't compile, 1.0.1 libs did!) and after installing pd and making aliases
for libtk.so.0 and libtcl.so.0 in /usr/lib/ linked to their respective
libraries (and libstdc++.so.3 for xsample~ externals) I could launch PD.

Forget using Red Hat 9!!!The cpu usage was at 45% before I'd even turned
audio on in my very-complex patch (compared to 1-3% on Red Hat 7.2) and
abstractions took 5 minutes to come up after clicking on them! Unfortunately
I don't have the disks for 7.2 any more, so I'm stuck with a 2.2 kernel
distribution (Mandrake 7).

Can anyone recommend a current linux distribution for running PD? I've had
enough of Red Hat!

Lone Shark: Aviation.
Electronic music for your mind, body and soul! Released March/April 2004 on
Pyramid Transmissions.

-----Original Message-----
From: pd-list-admin at iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin at iem.at]On Behalf Of
Frank Barknecht
Sent: 25 February 2004 09:37
To: thelist
Subject: Re: [PD] Red Hat 9 and PD

guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
> > there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40%
> > sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
> I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :)
> Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance,
> if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40%
> improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
> I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than
> an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower
> latency.

I've switched to 2.6 now, and must say 2.6 is very okay. It had
problems compared to a LL-patched 2.4 kernel, but a) those problems
did'nt affect me and the way I work (I don't do 16-channel, 4 ms
latency recordings) and b) from what I've heard, 2.6.3 fixed a lot of
these latency problems.  Still, for an out-of-the box kernel, 2.6 is
impressive and I'd say: totally useable. (Except: I cannot print

The new scheduler is wonderful. The system feels faster everywhere,
alhough it probably isn't.

 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__

PD-list mailing list
PD-list at iem.at

More information about the Pd-list mailing list