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
4 is the one I was saying could be done via X Audio plugin, thus use all the same networking code, same ssh connection etc etc.
OSS and ALSA should do 1, a third solution shouldn't be required.
2 and 3 ok, but does that need a whole other solution?
My problem with ALSA is just feel it's not Unix, and it's going away from the Plan9 ideal Unix. It's not just aesthetics, if you have a file interface, no special APIs are needed. Now ok, anything that needs audio, has one of many APIs available, but any new environment would need a binding etc etc. That's just not Unix!
I probably should move to a BSD if I want a purer Unix, but I like the GPL.....and the size of the community.....speed of development.......etc etc. ;-)
Member since:2005-07-06
As I said before, I can't say that I disagree about the file semantics, and it should not be a reason to switch OS. (At least IMHO).
But in the end, Linux -really- needs a good hardware independent sound server / mixer. Pulse may or many not the solution - but in 3 years time, we will not understand how we could live without it...
- Gilboa
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