Talk:Ubuntu Studio

Fair use rationale for Image:Ubustulogo.png

Image:Ubustulogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

official?

I don't think this is an official derivate of Ubuntu, the offical site [1] tells a different story. --84.177.40.128 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a "derivative" in the same way as xubuntu et al but the packages that comprise ubuntustudio are in the official ubuntu universe repositories. So in that sense it's more official, but maybe less derivative :-). --Joeboy 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Canonical lists it as "Recognized" I changed it to as such in the article. If you can't get official support from Canonical for it, it's not official. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine now and this was a good update. But just to be clear, look for words like "supported", for a particular package, for a particular time period, if support is what you're looking for. I'm not aware of "official" being an official term for flavors in Ubuntu-land ;) though many are listed as "official" at Ubuntu#Official_distributions. But all the flavors have many bits of software that are not supported, along with many that are, for various periods of time. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

(moved from my talk page) "in terms of primary sources to secondary - either address the issue or discuss on the talk". Do you mean ratio with "primary sources to secondary"? If there would only be this sole secondary source would you have added the template? I did check the template and just wasn't sure if only one non-primary source was needed. That seems to be the case, not some ratio. If there are no sources then a template can be added (a different one if I recall). I do not care about this page per se, I edit the main Ubuntu page, this one is just a minor variant to me. comp.arch (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There's one good secondary WP:RS, plus distrowatch, and five primary sources. We need at least two good secondaries for WP:GNG, and an article should be build on secondaries and tertiaries.. hence there's a real issue with lacking secondaries. I would have thought this is notable, just needs more secondaries, hence the tagging. Widefox; talk 17:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not care to much about this article or if the template, just thought you do not need two too get rid of the template. Can't see anything about two in WP:GNG. I'm sure another secondary could be found, you and I do not believe this article/topic is not notable, that would be some other template for that? comp.arch (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Far too much of the article has no sources at all. While I don't think the article is at risk of deletion, it would be hard to argue against trimming it down to a WP:STUB or something close. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Trim down? Because some things are not sourced? I'm not sure that is what should be done (unless they shouldn't be here sourced or not). Things should be sourced or at least be verifiable. But I do not really care to much about this article, just wandering about the general principles.. comp.arch (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You are figuring it out well for someone that's been editing a year (congratulations on both counts!): It's all about verifiability. If information is not verfied and looks as if it might violate some part of WP:NOT, it's at risk of being removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are beeing sarcastic, then I see "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." If you want to remove, I'm fine with that. An alternative is adding a source. I will do neither. Not my problem. I add sources all the time, when I know someting to be true I add it or leave be even if I can't find a source. comp.arch (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended whatsoever. You are truly doing a good job.

You already had the solution in your comment ("or at least be verifiable"), you just didn't seem confident in it. I pointed out that unverified contents tend to be removed more often when there are other problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of finding more secondaries rather than trimming. Widefox; talk 10:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of trimming, just pointing out that trimming is an option given the current state of the article. If we get more secondaries in, then the article is better all around. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Latency

I've removed an unsourced paragraph related to latency:

"Typically, computers used as audio workstations rely on hardware monitoring which may provide low latency, but does not allow the live signal to be manipulated beyond available hardware effects. To manipulate a live signal, software processing of the signal is necessary, which most audio work stations can only achieve with latencies greater than several tens of milliseconds. Thus, a notable advantage of linux-lowlatency is being able to achieve software processing with latencies well below the human perception threshold of 20 milliseconds."

This is both unsourced and the majority of claims within it are untrue or at best hugely outdated. With regard to the first sentence, that hasn't been true from many years - real time monitoring with software effects is standard process.

Similarly, with regard to the second sentence, latencies "greater than several 10s" of milliseconds is unheard of except under immense system strain. Typical latencies are in the region of 7ms, even on a ten year old system. It rises to about 15ms minimum if it's a USB1 interface.

With respect to the third point, the human perception of latency is nowhere near 20ms. That's blatantly obvious, even to a casual musician playing. It's closer to 4 or five ms on transient sounds, e.g. drumming.

There may very well be advantages to linux-lowlatency relative to other linux approaches, but this paragraph does not outline that.