|This page was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Linux||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Just a quick comment about creating this page. I know there is a lot of discussion about listing 'flash-in-the-pan' distros. I am aware that these guys are marginal, but they seem to be off to a good start and are developing this for 64-bit workstations. There are plans for paid support but the actual software is free as with all other variations of Debian.
Anyway, I have nothing to do with 64Studio-- I just have spent a lot of time trying to make some of my expensive audio hardware work under Linux and it is generally still quite difficult. This distribution could make someone's life a bit easier so I think it is useful here. Doubtless, it would be helpful to have more information, but really everything is contained in discussions about realtime-audio in linux, debian itself, etc. This distribution is just a result of a particular view of these topics.
Finally, although this will become something of a commercial link in the future, there is currently nothing for sale at 64studio.com
Any changes or comments short of completely deleting this page are quite welcome-- I am more than aware of how limited this stub currently is. Matthew 06:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
32 bit PC's are legacy? Lunarctic 04:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- lol! When discussing linux drivers, legacy seems to refer to any PC hardware that will not be experiencing significant changes in the future (and therefore the hardware is relatively static). See Legacy system. --Matthew K 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Not the best page on wikipedia for sure, but i don't think it should be deleted. With all the different Linux distroes out there it's good to have a page for all those that are actively maintained. I'm not sober enough to go edit a page atm (sorry) maybe i'll come back later. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
All of the external links in the references section are primary links or are not reliable sources. Distrowatch, for example, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Of the three links in the "further reading" section, only one of them, the dead linked InformationWeek blog is at all a third-party reliable source. The FSM article was written by Daniel James, and clicking on his name in that article reveals that he is "the director of 64 Studio Ltd." The forum reference is a user submitted review, not a reliable source. If the references can be improved, that would help the article, but the references currently in the article don't give any significant notability to the article. - SudoGhost 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)