topic title: For music production, MX or antiX?
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
Posts: 45
- Joined: 03 Apr 2013
#1
Apart from myself, who else is using antiX or MX for making music?
-
Posts: 1,308
- Joined: 31 Aug 2009
#2
For a few years the forum user
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"antix.freeforu ms.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2128"
linktext was:"eino"
====================================
made a respin of antiX designed for music production. I haven't seen them around recently and they haven't logged in here in almost nine months. I hope they are okay. I think either distro would work well. You choice of which one to use should mostly depend on which one you prefer.
I tried to explain the differences between the two distros in
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=40466&p=391296#p391296"
linktext was:"this recent post"
====================================
on the MX forums.
Eino used our full blown build-iso tool to make their music production respin. It is easier to use our live-remaster and snapshot tools in simple circumstances. I say this in case you are interested in making your own music production respin.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"antix.freeforu ms.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2128"
linktext was:"eino"
====================================
made a respin of antiX designed for music production. I haven't seen them around recently and they haven't logged in here in almost nine months. I hope they are okay. I think either distro would work well. You choice of which one to use should mostly depend on which one you prefer.
I tried to explain the differences between the two distros in
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=40466&p=391296#p391296"
linktext was:"this recent post"
====================================
on the MX forums.
Eino used our full blown build-iso tool to make their music production respin. It is easier to use our live-remaster and snapshot tools in simple circumstances. I say this in case you are interested in making your own music production respin.
-
Posts: 45
- Joined: 03 Apr 2013
#3
Thanks.BitJam wrote:For a few years the forum user
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"antix.freeforu ms.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2128"
linktext was:"eino"
====================================
made a respin of antiX designed for music production. I haven't seen them around recently and they haven't logged in here in almost nine months. I hope they are okay. I think either distro would work well. You choice of which one to use should mostly depend on which one you prefer.
I tried to explain the differences between the two distros in
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=40466&p=391296#p391296"
linktext was:"this recent post"
====================================
on the MX forums.
Eino used our full blown build-iso tool to make their music production respin. It is easier to use our live-remaster and snapshot tools in simple circumstances. I say this in case you are interested in making your own music production respin.
-
Posts: 850
- Joined: 26 Jul 2012
#4
Whilst I'm an AntiX fan myself, maybe take a look at this distro for ideas.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.dyne.org/software/dynebolic/"
linktext was:"https://www.dyne.org/software/dynebolic/"
====================================
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.dyne.org/software/dynebolic/"
linktext was:"https://www.dyne.org/software/dynebolic/"
====================================
-
Posts: 107
- Joined: 10 Sep 2011
#5
@OP: I am! __{{emoticon}}__
After a bit of frustration with the recent Ubuntu Studio 16.04 regarding some performance issues, I came to a simple conclusion:
as a synth user who wants hardware-like performance,"less is better." A distro that fits on a CD is better than 2-4GB distros, at least as far as where performance is concerned.
Speed and no-interruptions are crucial. So I installed AntiX 16 (full, but base would have been fine too, I think), 32-bit. It works wonderfully.
I added the KXStudio repositories, since they are available for Debian-based distros, not just Ubuntu.
brian
After a bit of frustration with the recent Ubuntu Studio 16.04 regarding some performance issues, I came to a simple conclusion:
as a synth user who wants hardware-like performance,"less is better." A distro that fits on a CD is better than 2-4GB distros, at least as far as where performance is concerned.
Speed and no-interruptions are crucial. So I installed AntiX 16 (full, but base would have been fine too, I think), 32-bit. It works wonderfully.
I added the KXStudio repositories, since they are available for Debian-based distros, not just Ubuntu.
brian