Separate names with a comma.
So, anyone knows if there's a way (preferably "easy") to stream Tidal bit-perfectly?
there are different ways, including the following which I have tried
1) Use Google Chrome and PulseAudio. Just check on the console that the sample rate is not changed (44100 Hz). For example, if your DAC is named "DAC", type the following:
As long as you can set Chrome's output to your dac (using PulseAudio Volume Control) and set the default/fallback device to another sound card (maybe the internal audio card). This way no system sound like, e.g., a new email notification, should arrive to your chosen DAC.
The quality is very good IMHO.
2) MPD + Upmpdcli + (if necessary, depending on versions of mpd and upmpdcli) BubbleUpnpServer + BubbleUpnpPlayer (as a controller, on an Android Phone)
The best results come from this setup, IMO. It is better if mpd runs on a dedicated fanless pc, preferably equipped with a linear power supply.
Let me know if you intend to try something and if you need further information.
Other solutions are appreciated, of course!
Thanks! Option b seems to be a bit complicated. I found a different way by connecting my nexus 9 tablet to my dac using UAPP, but this isn't idea since I lose the ability to scroble
On some multi-boot systems I am using Fedora and like the polish feel of it, with Debian I have been back and forth through out the years... for simple and pain-free linux experience i have other machines with Linux Mint and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu gives up on Unity, transitioning to GNOME: https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/05/growing-ubuntu-for-cloud-and-iot-rather-than-phone-and-convergence/
(No, not an April Fool's)
Good, GNOME for me. I've been using the flashback for more than 4 years now. Very light, and simple. Looking forward to 18.04 LTS
I'd like to see more support from Ubuntu for WINE and integration of Nvidia. Video games in Ubuntu is lacking..
Not the place where I was also expecting to see this news reported...
Anyway, that's great news for the Linux community.
Maybe that would mean that Canonical will contribute more actively with Gnome from now on.
Now IMO Unity is not bad at all. It's just not necessary. Gnome can be configured to look and behave like unity, same goes for kde now. XFCE, even if it seems more minimalistic, also beats unity for flexibility.
IMO this is great news. And also a wise decision from Canonical. If only they had taken this decision earlier...
I agree, it is unnecessary to have two after installing. GNOME is enough, and if Canonical would spend more time focusing on it, I think it can be great. Unity tried to simplify things, but by adding many features it became more complicated and heavier than GNOME.
It would be better for Ubuntu to keep it simple and minimalistic, so that users using low-end hardware can use. OS for everyone.
I was reading discussions concerning Ubuntu GNOME, and how regular Ubuntu might possible diverge from the stock GNOME layout in Ubuntu GNOME to match Unity (with extensions, etc), but then Shuttleworth posted this on G+:
https://plus.google.com/+MarkShuttleworthCanonical/posts/7LYubpaHUHH (Sorry about the full URL, link embedding seems to be broken on Head-Fi's CK Editor)
For those using GNOME 3, is there an existing Ambiance theme for GNOME Shell? I think as long as Ambiance is implemented well, the Ubuntu "aesthetic" is kept mostly intact. I found this (https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1118405/) but I'm not sure if it's kept up with whatever changes Canonical has added to Ambiance during the Unity period. I suppose there are no shortage of existing GNOME Shell themes out there, but it would probably be better to ship something distinctively Ubuntu-looking out of the box. Plus, I find Ambiance more pleasing than Adwaita.
As for performance, Unity has definitely been a hog. I tried loading up the 17.04 beta on a VM for fun recently, to see how things have changed, and it was unusably slow (KVM using virtio drivers, 4G of memory and 2 cores allocated even). I didn't even think to try and put it on what I would call low-end hardware. To be fair though, GNOME 3 has not been that much better, so I don't think anything is going to change regarding the accessibility of low-end hardware with these desktops.
However, I've noticed that MATE has been doing pretty well - even on 512MB. In some configurations, it even matches the memory usage of stock XFCE, up until you start ripping out everything but xfce-panel and xfsession. But at that point, you might as well just use LXPanel/FBPanel + [Insert floating WM here]. I couldn't find any discernable difference between Marco and Xfwm either. It's been interesting to see how the landscape has changed - a lot more midweight DEs after the wake of Gnome 3 and Unity.
I'd like to mention I really appreciate a lot ubuntu, in all its flavours. I have especially multiple installations of ubuntu server as well as a pair debian.
For the desktop, I am now using Linux Mint Cinnamon after trying ubuntu 16.04 with unity, trying Gnome on it from the PPA.
That does not diminish at all ubuntu's value for the Linux community. As you may know, Mint is based on Ubuntu 16.04, with some default packages removed, a different desktop environment, different themes.
Today on my mom's PC, which I am using right now, I just installed Mate (from the PPA), and it feels faster and very polished. It's quite old hardware (a celeron dual core) so I am encouraging here to keep this desktop as default. She seems quite happy with the change.
Choices are difficult. After Ubuntu 10.10, Ubuntu introduced Unity instead of migrating to Gnome 3. At the time, could we really blame Canonical for not jumping on that ship? I surely cannot, although it might seem easy now to think that it would have been a lot better to stick to gnome 2 for some more time. Mate, at the time, didn't even exist.
But Canonical has a focus on innovation, the vision for 'convergence', so Unity started. History now says it was not the wisest choice, but still I am wondering what could have been the best choice to do at that time.
And, about the huge number of distros.
IMO, very few are really innovative. A lot are ubuntu derivatives. Some are really interesting and really give a contribution to the community, like Linux Mint. Lots of distros on the other hand are not worth the effort of installing.
Long live Ubuntu
This is not about the patches for stable LTS kernels going commercial, that's a separate issue from way back that had a fair bit of discussion on the usual venues (HN, etc). This is about the patches for the test kernels not going beyond 4.9.
Disappointing if true. Daniel Micay (the OP's source) is the maintainer for Arch's grsec kernels, and heads up CopperheadOS (Android + PaX and other goodies). The thread mentions that Alpine maintains their own version, so I wonder if others will follow that route. Will note that the grsecurity patches got bumped to 4.9.21 yesterday. No official announcements, so nothing really confirmed, but I'd look out for any news regarding this. Grsecurity is a big reason that is keeping me from going BSD at this point.
Unfortunately the speculation has come to an end. The announcement is here: https://grsecurity.net/passing_the_baton.php
HN and Reddit discussion (the former has input from the PaX team):
Discussion on the Arch and Gentoo-Hardened mailing lists:
The Alpine team is still maintaining their own grsec fork, but otherwise, it seems like there is no more chance of getting support. I am saddened by this news, and am considering migrating some machines to OpenBSD.
Long, long time user here. First contact was... i don't even remember when it was. I think kernel version was 0.97. Now, most of my time is spent in clusters with thousands of cpu's, terabytes of RAM and petabytes of disk space. Amazing progress...
Arch + i3 here, dual booted with OSX.
Been using Linux for around 10 years and is currently on Debian Jessie + Gnome with a Asus DGX sound card on my Desktop and Ubuntu Mate on my laptop.