Hmm, that doesn’t sound good, will have to test.
Understandable, but I don’t think it’s a sustainable strategy in the long run, because the API is changing, and new modules might become unrunnable/flaky for you because of it.
It does and it needs more testing, good repro cases and support tickets I’m afraid. I’d be interested to hear if Andrew has rejected this because he can’t reproduce it.
I think it’s always said that on Linux actually, whether someone is using the Jack driver or not, and it can be misleading of course. I would probably disregard it as a test that Rack always runs on Linux, no matter how relevant it is.
Sort of like above. I suspect that it’s misleading, and can be read as “you’re doing something wrong” where in actual fact it’s just informational, and downright irrelevant if you’re not using the Jack driver.
It’s not… uncomplicated 
My impression of Jack, also having tried it is this: For many it can be a right pain in the neck to get running and configured properly, but for those who manage they swear it’s the greates thing ever, and I tend to believe them. Lots of patience required…
Yeah, I suspected that. So you’re in the unfortunate, smallish group of people who experienced a serious regression in audio after 2.0.6, and I feel for you. I think they’re all on Linux but not 100% sure.
Yes, I think so, and I believe there’s already some topics on the forum on the post-2.0.6-audio glitches issue. I’m surprised it hasn’t been diagnosed and solved yet, but do remember that (unfortunately) the Linux users are by far the smallest userbase of Rack.