[Jack-Devel] Jack Problems

[liebrecht at grossmann-venter.com]

On 2019-03-23 16:28, John Rigg wrote:

> It appears to me that you've been having problems with Pulseadudio,
> but you insist on saying it's jack's fault. My advice: get rid of
> pulseaudio, which has no business being on a serious recording
> system at all IMO.
> 

Completely purged pulseaudio from my system. Reinstalled jack. Made sure 
only jack and alsa is installed
jack still wont start - go figure.
I guess now it will be alsa's fault since pulseaudio is not around 
anymore -- just following the logic.

< I've used jack since 2005 in my work as an audio engineer,
> and it allows me to do things that my Windows- and Mac-using colleagues
> are unable to do due to the arbitrary restrictions built in to so much
> proprietary software. There's no way I'd go back to those systems even
> though I could easily afford to.
> 

I totally agree with you.
Jack is indispensable.
Since you get it running with such impunity, why dont you write it up in 
a document from scratch how you get it up reliably and help us all 
understand what is needed.
I for one will REALLY appreciate it.

> I have to admit I'm a little puzzled here. Surely the source code is
> the obvious documentation to use for an experienced programmer is it
> not? Even without that there's a lot of documentation out there on
> the alsa and jack web sites, and a quick look with top or ps would
> tell you if you have two conflicting audio servers running (which I
> suspect is the cause of your problem).


Nope and not true, see next answer below. There is an expert user and 
there is no other "expert" except the program developer. The programmer 
is the only expert on the other side. You cannot ask users to become 
program developers.
We are talking on expert users here right ?

> 
> There is a proper specification: the API docs. It sounds like you want
> to become an expert but don't want to do any of the necessary work to
> achieve that. That may sound harsh, but I think you've made a lot of
> unfair and misdirected criticisms in this thread.

Excuse me..
The API is not even remotely a user specification. It is more of the 
definition of an interface for the programmer and has nothing to do with 
the user.

There is no specification as it stands
A specification in Layman's terms will describe the proposed software to 
be released as a "Black Box" and that is long after the API. The 
specification is for issuing to the the operator if it is consistent  
and is NOT an operation manual. It is the testbed conditions to evaluate 
the software, clearly repeatably and consistently, by anyone wanting to 
use it.
In modern days, simulators of a piece of equipment running software can 
be viewed as a dynamic form of specification as it can only operate 
within a specification to be valid.
The simulator is written on the basis of the blackbox behavior. 
Obviously not the API as it involves the programmer. A specification 
evaluates the software independent from its creators equally valid for 
anyone, no bias.

1) Therefore you need to define inputs outputs. This has several 
subsections.
2) Points of instability.
3) Operational Dependencies on other software.
...and the list goes on.
There is no formal /specification which would force the software into a 
usuable object by testing it against specification or junk and rewrite 
if it doesnt conform.
I understand that specification is not really a commercial/casual thing, 
as linux is, and rather for mission critical situations, but it would 
not hurt to adopt it as it will be usable to general users if it 
conforms to a general black box specification and save everyone a lot of 
time.

If I wrote the software I would do it, but I understand that it is 
unfortunately not the norm in civilian software development which is a 
pity.