We reported earlier on a blog post entitled "Ubuntu Report Card (2009)" where the author detailed how they felt the Ubuntu experience had improved over the years. In a follow-up series of articles looking at the future, Tanner Helland has written 10 different broadly-scoped feature requests that [he] 'and many others would like to see by the time Ubuntu 10.10 rolls around'.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-05-06
I understand that OSSv4 was proprietary (big mistake), but I'm unclear if they could have implimented a separate more modern OSS instead of going and doing the un-Unix ALSA.
There is no reason a modern OSS couldn't have something like /dev/snd/<card_name> symlink'ed as /dev/dsp*. The device file /dev/dsp* is a real file device, as in "cat /dev/random > /dev/dsp1" gives a blast of noise out of the first sound card. The great thing about having everything as file, is a computer is just a filesystem. So in theory, so you can create a mash up computer out of bits of other computers by mounting the folders of the other computers.
Clean API and file interface, which is why it's easier for ALSA to ape OSS than OSS to ALSA.
Pulse only came along (argh a third solution) because of the OSSv3 / ALSA mess. I much prefer the idea of http://www.chaoticmind.net/~hcb/murx/xaudio/ for network sound.
Member since:2005-07-06
Second judging Linux kernel dev's decision in retrospect is easy.
At the time, Linux devs had no idea if/when OSSv4 will be opened, and as such, they used what was available at the time Alsa.
As it works out of box for 90% of the people (if not above), I see no reasons for them to change their decision.
True, I do prefer echo file.wav > /dev/dsp, but this doesn't look like a compelling reason to switch back to OSS.
I have zero experience with OSS and Alsa as API so I can't really comment on either one.
False.
As far as I can tell, Pulse came to solve 4 issues:
1. -Reliable- source mixing for cards that do not have a working hardware mixer.
2. Dynamic volume management across different streams.
3. Ability to dynamically reroute stream to different sound cards.
4. Network transparency and multi-seat support.
You may claim that Pulse is too buggy to be effective, but AFAIK, neither OSS nor ALSA can be support 2,3 and 4.
I still don't use Pulse, as I find far too unreliable (partially due to buggy drivers) - but I have no doubt that in the long run, Pulse is the way to develop a versatile sound system for Linux.
- Gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06
... You seem to forget that Linux was forced to use ALSA because OSS wasn't truly open at the time. (only 3.x was open, 4.x was proprietary).
As far as I know (correct me on if I'm wrong), baring weird device node configuration (/dev/snd/* as opposed to /dev/mixer* /dev/dsp*) and somewhat cleaner API, there are not technical reasons to switch back. Am I wrong?
- Gilboa