At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:51:59 +0200 (CEST),
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> >> Sory Alan but I don't want philosophical/historical discuss.
> >> Try to answer on question "ALSA or OSS ?" using *only* technical arguments.
> >
> > We dropped OSS for ALSA for technical reasons. Those being that ALSA
> > - has a better audio API
>
> How better and where better ?
> Please be more verbose :>
>
> > - is more flexible
>
> Yes .. if you have API with thin abstracttion (like ALSA has) theoreticaly
> you can do more but also by lack of some abstraction normal/usual things
> must be implemented in harder way. This was theory .. pracice is completly
> diffrent because some applications still provides better soud support
> (without interruption) when uses OSS emulation placed on top ALSA layer
> than compiled for direct use ALSA API.
>
> Sound it in not rocket science. In 99.9% cases you need well abstracted
> API which ALSA doe not provide and this is real cause why so poor sound
> support in Linux applications is. Thin ALSA abstraction is main cause of
> avalaibability "tons" of additional soud user space APIs.
I disagree about this. Tons of various user-space APIs would be
created anyway. It's the nature of FOSS developemnt.
Takashi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
