Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:54 UTC
Linux The Linux Foundation has made some analyzation the past two years into just how much code is being added to the project and who is doing that contribution. This year's report is out, and the results are actually quite smile-worthy if you're a Linux advocate: the increase in code contributions is phenomenal, the rate at which these contributions are being submitted is faster, and there are more individual developers than previously.
Thread beginning with comment 379531
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jibadeeha
Member since:
2009-08-10

Xorg and (pulse)audio.

And as I understand it Google's "OS" is just a Linux distribution, isn't it? I thought they are using standard things like Xorg. Do they develop something different?


You best make that Xorg, (pulse)audio, and intel drivers ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

"Xorg and (pulse)audio.

And as I understand it Google's "OS" is just a Linux distribution, isn't it? I thought they are using standard things like Xorg. Do they develop something different?


You best make that Xorg, (pulse)audio, and intel drivers ;)
"

I think pulseaudio wouldn't be necessary if ALSA was better, why not put the pulseaudio functionality in the core, on the audio stack where it should be, and let programs communicate over a simple API, instead of relying on 10,000 different APIs for outputting audio.

I think that's the problem with sound on Linux nowadays, that we have many crap and layers on top of the audio stack (ALSA).

If we could improve ALSA without going the "band-aid" way we could have a better system today.

Pulseaudio, esd, etc is just like dealing with the symptoms and not with the problems' cause or root of the problem.

Edited 2009-08-20 01:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

FishB8 Member since:
2006-01-16

I think pulseaudio wouldn't be necessary if ALSA was better, why not put the pulseaudio functionality in the core, on the audio stack where it should be, and let programs communicate over a simple API, instead of relying on 10,000 different APIs for outputting audio. I think that's the problem with sound on Linux nowadays, that we have many crap and layers on top of the audio stack (ALSA). If we could improve ALSA without going the "band-aid" way we could have a better system today. Pulseaudio, esd, etc is just like dealing with the symptoms and not with the problems' cause or root of the problem.


There's nothing really wrong with ALSA (I realize it has some rough edges, but you can find issues with any API) People generally use PulseAudio's API because it makes their app multiplatform.

As long as people want to build multiplatform audio apps, their will always be an abstraction layer like PulseAudio stuck in there.

Reply Parent Score: 1

d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

I think pulseaudio wouldn't be necessary if ALSA was better, why not put the pulseaudio functionality in the core, on the audio stack where it should be, and let programs communicate over a simple API, instead of relying on 10,000 different APIs for outputting audio.


Do you remember the days in which there was only 1 API? The OSS? Today it's open source and we still don't use it on Linux. It supports everything that we need including 5.1, S/PDIF passthrought and the rest and the best thing is that it's also supported on all UNIX like OS's (FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, etc.).
Furthermore, it's the _ONLY_ API that looks like a UNIX API. fopen(/dev/dsp) and you're set. [/q]
There are currently only 2 reasons two use another sound API:

1) Jackd for stuff such as Rivendell (for radio stations). Nothing beats the patchbay that Jack offers you, but that's only required for a few things.

2) Networked stuff. If I remotely login and I have a fiber at my disposal, the sound system should follow my X11 session.

For anything else the OSS API is perfect.

Please note the use of the word API next to OSS. I am not sure which implementation is best between ALSA and OSS, but I know that the OSS API is my personal favorite. Maybe we can keep the ALSA drivers and still use the OSS API.

Reply Parent Score: 3

porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Phonon is multiplatform, has a nice and simple API and none of the problems that PULSE has.

I think if more people were aware of how well it works, they would not have embarked on the mess that Pulse is.

Right now, it is broken in most major distributions and lots of applications do not work with it. They work fine without it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Please stop the shitty Linux hype. Phonon isn't multiplatform it's 'multi-Linux'. You have to do some really heavy chin-ups just to port it to multiple platforms.

Reply Parent Score: 1