Beginning Linux - where would you start?

[audiojunkie]

For music, I’d suggest a preconfigured turnkey distro like AV Linux or Ubuntu Studio, or LibraZik. Yes, in this case, even Ubuntu Studio.

For general usage, Mint is a safe bet.

Just general usage. I just want to squeeze some life out of my small mountain of old Macs. I think I got the idea from Pewdiepie of all people. Never watch him, yet one day there was a video where he did a Linux installation on an old computer.

One more thing before I let you go. There seem to be a division between "normal" distros and ones aimed for music work. Just curious - what's that all about? Is it like back in the days when you stripped out all the unnecessary background tasks in Windows XP and created a streamlined audio computer?

/Carl

Ok. Start with Linux Mint XFCE. I don’t know how old your computers are, but this is a good starting point. If you find that your systems are still sluggish with that distro, we can try something lighter. But this is a good balance to try first.

Regarding your music question—yes, you are exactly correct. Because of the flexibility of the OS, to get the best performance, one must “tune” (configure) it to respond ideally for a low latency environment.

The nice thing is that in the Linux world, people can put together the OS any way they want. In truth, “Linux” is just the kernel. A “distribution” (distro) is the choice of libraries and software to go with the kernel to make a total OS designed for the designer’s specific purpose.

There are 600+ distros being made by different people or teams. Most are designed for generic computer usage, but use various different desktop environment and software choices. There can also be distros configured for specific purposes such as gaming, low spec or old computers, audio production, etc.

The key thing to know though, is that most generic distros can be configured to be whatever you want them to be. The difference is that a purpose-built or preconfigured ( sometimes also called turn-key or appliance) distro has already done all of the configuration work for the user. This makes things quick and easy for new users or those who don’t want to deal with (or know how) to do the the configurations.

I usually recommend one of these music distros to new or prospective Linux musicians that are making the move from Windows to Linux, because it is important that new users experience what a properly tuned, properly running Linux machine can do, so that proper expectations are set from the beginning.

Some more experienced users forget what it can be like for non-technical people moving from a Windows to a Linux environment. They recommend a generic linux distro and the culture shock plus required tuning can be too much. Often these new users will will make mistakes in their configurations or in other ways mess things up, and that results in a poor experience with Linux.

I hope that answers your question.

[DrGonzo]

I hope that answers your question.

Excellent - getting hang of it now. And when people talk about Kernels, that's like Libraries we used when compiling C code back in the day? A part of the code you can choose to add or not.

/Carl

[audiojunkie]

I hope that answers your question.

Excellent - getting hang of it now. And when people talk about Kernels, that's like Libraries we used when compiling C code back in the day? A part of the code you can choose to add or not.

/Carl

Not really. It’s the control center and management system of any operating system. Every OS (Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, iOS, etc) has one. ChatGPT describes it better:

The kernel is the core part of the operating system that controls everything and lets software talk to the hardware safely and efficiently.

Without it, apps wouldn’t know how to use your computer’s brain (CPU), memory, or devices…

[Tiles]

I usually recommend one of these music distros to new or prospective Linux musicians that are making the move from Windows to Linux, because it is important that new users experience what a properly tuned, properly running Linux machine can do, so that proper expectations are set from the beginning.

Note that this approach can also backfire. These specialized distributions usually have a much smaller user base and tend to be less consistently maintained than the major ones. That's nothing for beginners.

For beginners, I would recommend going in the opposite direction: start with a well-supported mainstream distro. That way you learn a setup that is easier to maintain and troubleshoot, rather than depending on a niche system from day one.

You can set up a proper low-latency or realtime audio environment there at any time, with better documentation and broader community support. However, a realtime kernel or audio-focused system cannot compensate for CPU constraints, limited RAM, outdated I/O performance, or missing hardware and software support.

Worth a thought: On older Macs, the original macOS setup will typically provide a better overall experience for music production specifically, due to native drivers and tighter audio integration. Outside of that context, a ten year old mac OS is of course a dated system in many other respects.

[audiojunkie]

I usually recommend one of these music distros to new or prospective Linux musicians that are making the move from Windows to Linux, because it is important that new users experience what a properly tuned, properly running Linux machine can do, so that proper expectations are set from the beginning.

Note that this approach can also backfire. These specialized distributions usually have a much smaller user base and tend to be less consistently maintained than the major ones. That's nothing for beginners.

For beginners, I would recommend going in the opposite direction: start with a well-supported mainstream distro. That way you learn a setup that is easier to maintain and troubleshoot, rather than depending on a niche system from day one.

You can set up a proper low-latency or realtime audio environment there at any time, with better documentation and broader community support. However, a realtime kernel or audio-focused system cannot compensate for CPU constraints, limited RAM, outdated I/O performance, or missing hardware and software support.

Worth a thought: On older Macs, the original macOS setup will typically provide a better overall experience for music production specifically, due to native drivers and tighter audio integration. Outside of that context, a ten year old mac OS is of course a dated system in many other respects.

Tiles and I don’t agree on much. We don’t like or have much respect for each other. I’d much rather completely ignore him, than to talk with him. But what he states here is true.

I guess you’ll (DrGonzo) have to think about it and decide what route you want to try: 1.) a preconfigured music specific distro, or 2.) a solid generic distro that you can then configure for low audio latency.

I guess if you try one way, and it doesn’t work for you, it’s not too difficult to switch to the other way.

[lunardigs]

it's complicated. You wouldn't understand.

Try me.

If you find it difficult to put it under words, then it's based on gut feelings? Maybe it's you who doesn't really understand why.

Well ...............................

For instance, I just saw this today:



Meanwhile, Fedora = Red Hat = IBM = DARPA and NSA = spooks ...
Which isn't appealing to me.

[uOpt]

I think with pipewire being common now it is not longer a big advantage to run an audio specific distribution. During jack'n'pulse times you had the advantage that you don't default to that POS pulseaudio.

I have not been a beginner for a while, so I don't know whether a generic distribution with pipewire allows as smooth sailing as a properly set up jackd.

Otherwise I agree with Audiojunkie on most things in this thread.

[audiojunkie]

it's complicated. You wouldn't understand.

Try me.

If you find it difficult to put it under words, then it's based on gut feelings? Maybe it's you who doesn't really understand why.

Well ...............................

For instance, I just saw this today:



Meanwhile, Fedora = Red Hat = IBM = DARPA and NSA = spooks ...
Which isn't appealing to me.

As a Fedora with Gnome user, I personally think it is a very well thought out opinionated desktop environment, with very few bugs. It is currently the best environment out of all of the available desktop environments for touch screen usage, which is one of the reasons I use it with my 2-in-1 laptop, when I am using it as a tablet. Confession—I am easily able to use my device under all conditions: general computer usage, music production, touchscreen tablet usage, gaming, etc. I’m only limited by the hardware power of the machine, not the OS.

What you use and prefer is your choice, and the beauty of Linux is that there are more choices and options than any other computing environment. It appears that you prefer an un-opinionated environment, rather than there being an actual problem with the Gnome environment.

Throughout my long years of distro hopping, I personally developed a long list of things that I preferred in a distro. It was through developing this personal list of criteria that I decided upon Fedora (in particular, Fedora Silverblue) as my distro of choice. It has run flawlessly for me, and believe it or not, I’ve never had a single error while using it.

So, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with your preferences. I just want to help you know what to tell someone the next time someone asks about your linux preferences.

I would say that you prefer a completely open, fully community controlled, independent distro with an unopinionated desktop environment.

Something like Devuan (complete init freedom) with default XFCE or optional KDE Plasma, for example.

There are many that would fit your preferences.

[lunardigs]

it's complicated. You wouldn't understand.

Try me.

If you find it difficult to put it under words, then it's based on gut feelings? Maybe it's you who doesn't really understand why.

Well ...............................

For instance, I just saw this today:

...

Meanwhile, Fedora = Red Hat = IBM = DARPA and NSA = spooks ...
Which isn't appealing to me.

As a Fedora with Gnome user, I personally think it is a very well thought out opinionated desktop environment, with very few bugs. It is currently the best environment out of all of the available desktop environments for touch screen usage, which is one of the reasons I use it with my 2-in-1 laptop, when I am using it as a tablet. Confession—I am easily able to use my device under all conditions: general computer usage, music production, touchscreen tablet usage, gaming, etc. I’m only limited by the hardware power of the machine, not the OS.

What you use and prefer is your choice, and the beauty of Linux is that there are more choices and options than any other computing environment. It appears that you prefer an un-opinionated environment, rather than there being an actual problem with the Gnome environment.

Throughout my long years of distro hopping, I personally developed a long list of things that I preferred in a distro. It was through developing this personal list of criteria that I decided upon Fedora (in particular, Fedora Silverblue) as my distro of choice. It has run flawlessly for me, and believe it or not, I’ve never had a single error while using it.

So, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with your preferences. I just want to help you know what to tell someone the next time someone asks about your linux preferences.

I would say that you prefer a completely open, fully community controlled, independent distro with an unopinionated desktop environment.

Something like Devuan (complete init freedom) with default XFCE or optional KDE Plasma, for example.

There are many that would fit your preferences.

Yeah, I was a long time Fedora user at one point ...
I left though once stuff stared getting weird with IBM taking over. This is not to say I didn't get the drift earlier on, but I was kinda invested and didn't want to switch.
Glad I did though.

Meanwhile, Gnome never really appealed to me--and I gave it a legit try.
KDE/Plasma all the way for desktop and laptop.

[DrGonzo]

Not really. It’s the control center and management system of any operating system. Every OS (Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, iOS, etc) has one. ChatGPT describes it better:

RIght. I think I get it. The Kernel is the OS core that is the same for all distributions and the the individual distros are like with the included C libraries. The core + other stuff.

[lunardigs]

Pretty much.
A distro is a package of *nix tools, the Linux kernel, a desktop environment maybe, and whatever else.

[TechHaus]

I start all of my projects at 24/48 64 samples. 1.3ms in and 2.6ms round trip.

Periods 3. RT priority 40 in the REAPER settings.

On a Ryzen 3600, the pride of 2019. Focusrites are very solid on Linux. (edit: also an 18i20 2nd gen will run you like $200 these days)

No "tuning" or specialty distro needed.

[audiojunkie]

Not really. It’s the control center and management system of any operating system. Every OS (Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, iOS, etc) has one. ChatGPT describes it better:

RIght. I think I get it. The Kernel is the OS core that is the same for all distributions and the the individual distros are like with the included C libraries. The core + other stuff.

I think you’ve got it!

[havran]

I'm thinking of dipping my toes into Linux. I got a bunch of old Intel Macs that definitely can be used for stuff. If one were to start building a new installation - what would you do and what would you not do.

Just a few pointers would be helpful. If it can be used for audio, fine. But main purpose, basic usage. Web, play movies perhaps mail? Stuff like that. No crazy local server stuff.

/Carl

Check Distrowatch or do a web search for "desktop linux distro intel mac" -- probably all of the results (if they have good reviews) will do the job for web browsing and streaming as well as text editing and spreadsheets (usually with LibreOffice).

Maybe a conceptual thing I could mention is that Linux is more modular than MacOS or Windows in the sense that one could replace the desktop environment entirely while leaving all of the practical everyday apps in place, and also that all distros use the same apps and libraries* -- just at different frequencies of scrutinizing and updating.

So, for starters, I would suggest just picking an established desktop distro whose looks you like, and if you end up not liking it, back up your personal files and try another one. I don't have any personal experience with Mac hardware, but on a PC it usually takes less than ten minutes to install a new distro.
_____
* In the coding sense, libraries are bundles of commonly used functions that can be referred to by many apps so that the apps themselves can stay slim and trim.

[havran]

At this point, I hope some Mac users could advise how to put a distro's ISO onto a USB stick.

(As a PC user I use Ventoy -- but maybe that's not available for Mac?)