[PD-announce] Re: [linux-audio-dev] ANN: k_jack v0.0.0.5 and Mammut v0.15

[Paul Davis]

>> why? given that we have not even finished the initial implementation, why?
>>
>
>1. I didnt' use much time on this. It was made most to test my new libaipc
>library. Its not at all complete either.

why release it? 

>2. It was a provocation. :)
>
>For two years (or somethings), people have complained about the bad

JACK hasn't existed for much more than a year. and like others here, i
haven't seen complaints about JACK's performance. i have seen reports
of system lockups (most of which seem traceable to ALSA), and there
have in the past been some very tricky IPC issues to solve when
clients go away.

>performance of the jack system. And I don't think it has been solved. I
>dont know about alsa; and doesn't understand the driver-code, so it was
>easier for me just to reimplement jack.
>
>k_jack performs okey. You dont have to run things with realtime priority.

this is a joke, right? you **cannot** get reliably low latency
performance on a linux system without SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR. i don't
care how you write it, it just won't work.

>3. As I wrote in the README file. Its very simple when you can controle
>everything from PD. You could do this with the current implementation of
>jack, if you could make jack run without a driver. A dummy-driver is
>needed.

then why not write that instead of divert people's attention with a
new implementation. 

i find this all very upsetting. you write what appears from its name
to be some kind of IPC library. you decide to test it out. instead of
coming to jackit-devel and saying "i have this cool new library for
IPC. what do you think about using this to fix some problems with
JACK?", you go ahead and partially reimplement JACK, potentially
causing a code fork when we haven't even quite finished the initial
implementation. i have great respect for the audio work you've done so
far, but this is really irritating. i would welcome patches,
redesigns, suggestions, insights into improving JACK, but
reimplementation when you don't even understand it all is just beyond
my sense of what is sensible. there's nothing to stop you from doing
this - this is all open source of course. but i sincerely hope that
people will not use this new implementation unless it can be shown to
have all of the features and less of the drawbacks of the initial one.

--p