To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What Linux uses for audio? ALSA + GStreamer + ARTS + Esound + Pulseaudio and then finally touch sound card.
What does FreeBSD (and 4Front OSS) do here? APPLICATION --> OSS --> sound card, no unneded layers that create additional overhead and compatibility problems.
Wow you are soooo wrong it almost hurts :O
GStreamer is a multimedia framework, using OSS does not make the situation any different. Arts and Esound are both obsolete, they are not used at on modern distros. AND, again that has nothing to do with OSS or ALSA. Oh, and PulseAudio...well, PulseAudio is not driver. It's a layer that f.ex. allows network audio. I dunno if PulseAudio works with OSS though.
OSS is well documented (including API) while ALSA is one big mess without documentation.
http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/ There you go. Sorry to break your bubble.
Also let Ubuntu serve as an example here, which uses ALSA + PulseAudio, start Rythmobox and then start Wine, Wine does not have sound, start Wine at the beginning, Rythmobox does not have sound, because of what? Befause of ALSA.
No, it's actually because Rhythmbox does use PulseAudio whereas Wine doesn't have PulseAudio driver. So, it is not actually a fault in either PulseAudio or ALSA, it's just because Wine lacks support.
I also do not understand why people jerk off so much about ALSA while not knowing its technical and functional disadvantages comparing to OSS.
Then let us hear them? Or were those arguments above those?
... layers, frameworks, call them as you like, yeah, create more layers its fun ...
So why ARTS and ESD exist, because of workaround for ALSA, mixing is just mover to another layer, its little in the past but they were used for a lot of years and lets not forget about that.
... more layers, what for?
Where network audio is useful when you just want to play sound on your box? Its totally useless.
If network audio is only advantage of it then use it JUST for passing sound on the network, OSS also can do everything that PuylseAudio can, volume per application and so, so why use it for everything not onlt the NET? Another layer?
Heh
paste a link do some alsa-doc does not PROVE that this documentation is good, it just exist, its not only my thought that OSS aPI is a lot better documented while ALSA breaks API every release. You like links, so there you go, heve fun:
http://developer.opensound.com/
In shot - no its just not working with these ... layres?
Why WINE should support every new layer of Linux audio just as it arrives? Its PulseAudio role to create API that is compatible with existing software, or a plugin that simulates OSS what WINE use, but no, its easier to write something totally new that does not have anything to do with current appication and demand support for itfrom developers of WINE, very mature ...
And yes what PulseAudio was for? network audio, sad it can pass audio on network while it cannot even work on locahost :ASD
i agree and while i won't use alsa by itself by adding pulseaudio it's perfect.
install, configure to use pulse instead of alsa and you'll be able to run totem, rhythmbox, vlc and penny arcade adventures all at the same time.
it does get confusing though... Linux audio has come a long way and it works well.
OK, here's what I (think I) know about m'own humble system.
I have ALSA enabled in my kernel. I have also enabled the oss-emulation modules that are part of it, but I've never seen them loaded.
I run KDE, but Arts is disabled in all KDE packages. It's not present on my system at all. Nor are GStreamer, PulseAudio or ESD.
Any application that makes sound of any kind, does so without any tinkering. Sound "just works".
That's my laptop. On my server, where no sound is made and I didn't even enable sound-support in the kernel, I still had to build Arts as a dependency of the CLI management app for my RAID controller.
Life is weird :/






Member since:
2006-11-18
Never tried Draco though, but I'm eager to test it, as it's philosophy is similiar to Arch's.
It's easy to find that that you do not even know the difference between OSS and ALSA
Look at all that mess:
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png
While in FreeBSD and Draco Linux you pass everything to OSS and EVERYTHING is mixed in kernel real time.
What Linux uses for audio? ALSA + GStreamer + ARTS + Esound + Pulseaudio and then finally touch sound card.
What does FreeBSD (and 4Front OSS) do here? APPLICATION --> OSS --> sound card, no unneded layers that create additional overhead and compatibility problems.
OSS is well documented (including API) while ALSA is one big mess without documentation.
Also let Ubuntu serve as an example here, which uses ALSA + PulseAudio, start Rythmobox and then start Wine, Wine does not have sound, start Wine at the beginning, Rythmobox does not have sound, because of what? Befause of ALSA.
I am sick and tired of all these sick ideas about ALSA, PulseAudio or any other shit that do not work.
I also do not understand why people jerk off so much about ALSA while not knowing its technical and functional disadvantages comparing to OSS.
OSS is also open source, it is avialable on GPL, BSD and even CDDL license if you use Solaris.
OSS is cross platform and works on all major UNIXes and Linux, while ALSA works ONLY on Linux.
ALSA is shit, but people just get used to that shit and are scared to hell to try something new, taht is a lot better and polished, but that is their problem.