[linux-audio-user] Common linux audio layer

[omjn]

hi Christoph and list,

[ ** mildly longish reactions to the thread follow ** ]

I'm a newb on this list, but have been using linux for a while and 
recently have had some fun and success with linux audio.  I consider 
myself a user, with a technical inclination, and so whenever someone 
starts talking about "users" I just have to put my piece in. (you are 
talking about me afterall right?).  If you are not talking about me then 
you begin to see the problem of using such abstract  terms to drive the 
direction of any development.

Firstly, I have to say that I run windows, mac and linux in my studio.  
So I'm not an everyday desktop user, but I'm still a user, yes?  (I 
don't code beyond html and PHP hacking, so I wouldn't consider myself a 
developer by any stretch).  Of these systems, only one has a common 
audio layer, and that is OSX.  Windows has no less than four different 
audio layers, each employing different technical means to deliver audio 
to speakers from applications (MMS, DirectSound, ASIO, Giga...).  These 
are driver models I know, and these systems only have a single 
"distribution" , but my point is, there are different driver models to 
achieve different things, just as there are different users who want to 
do different things.  It is only recently that in windows things such as 
multiclient drivers have been released, although directsound has offered 
software mixing for some time.

On the systems that I run, Jack seems to offer to me the best model for 
managing sound as it allows a single point of call for most 
configuration without over simplifying things to the point of excluding 
me from whats going on underneath.  Jack on osx has brought a little of 
that flexibility to my preferred graphical environment, and I like what 
it has brought.  My point here is that Jack in itself, to me, is 
something that linux has that is (or was, until the osx port) both 
unique (and hence marketable), technically versatile and well thought 
out, and can also offer users a single point of call for most audio 
system configuration.

Another point I would make is about the things that attracted me to 
linux in the first place.  They are - it's free to download, install and 
run.  One of things that makes it so is that its development is driven 
by volunteers as much as by organisations, and the volunteers are also 
users.  The more linux would become reliant on capital investment to 
fund development, the more those investors are going to expect a return 
on their investment.  I would honestly rather a system that requires me 
to learn (heaven forbid!) but remains economically accessable, than a 
system that is technically beautiful but prohibitively expensive (osx 
anyone?).
Linux also allows me to learn more about the technicalities underlying 
the applications I use rather than just giving me some monolithic 
working environment that someone else decided was good for me to use.  
If I wanted a desktop environment that just works for daily use out of 
the box I would choose OSX, or if on a budget and forced by gunpoint, 
windows.  Linux offers something different, and I don't see the 
advantage of trying to make it all things to all people.  It's obvious 
the linux development community doesn't have the resources to offer a 
one size fits all approach, at least not to perfection, and as suggested 
by the Linspire example, individual distros can offer unified audio 
subsystems by including only applications that talk to the sound server 
of choice included in that distro.  Hence users can make the choice that 
suits them best, and learn to fill in any gaps along the way.  The 
choice is there to make, and I'm glad for it, as it offers me the chance 
to learn about the technical alternatives and hence make more informed 
choices, and also learn more about what might consitute 'good' computing 
techniques as opposed to having to accept the mandated from above 
techniques offered so as to keep the "average user" happy.

My point is I guess, rather than trying to imagine what it is that 
everybody else wants, and going on a crusade to conquer the desktop 
world with linux, I think it best to decide what I want, and find the 
best way to implement that and be happy.  Hey, it's free after all!  
I've tried in the past to get all advocacy with linux and switch friends 
and family to use it, mainly because I believe in the politics of FOSS, 
but ultimately they stick with windows precisely, as has been stated 
here, because it works out of the box.  Even if Linux could do the same 
(work out of the box, in whatever sense) that in itself offers no real 
incentive to an average user because they don't tend to care about the 
ethics of their operating system choice.  Sad and unfortunate, but 
true.  I know people who refuse to eat McDonalds but still can't see the 
moral dimension of computing.  Why would they switch from something that 
works to something that works if the second something that works means 
they have to learn a new computing environment?  If they didn't have the 
learning curve, that would mean Linux and Windows would be 
indistinguishable, and frankly, I didn't start using linux because I 
wanted a windows clone and that is the last thing I would want it to 
become.  Windows is developed with the user in mind, or rather, with the 
intention of appealling to as many users as possible, as this is the 
ideal economic model for mass industrialisation.  Personally, I think 
rather than pursuing a user driven, mass commercialisation agenda, linux 
should be pursuing the path of technical ingenuity, ethical computing, 
and better computing practice.  That to me means diversity, and the 
ability for users to choose the distro that is molded best to suit their 
individual needs.  I'm not really sure their is such a thing as a common 
or average user except in market demographic reports and profit 
forecasts.  I'm not arguing against broadening the appeal of linux as a 
desktop computing environment, but I just don't think that is linux' 
strength or needs to be, and I certainly don't think that should be 
undertaken if it undermines the things that distinguish linux from the 
competition.  It is possible to create a large user base from a 
collection of niches rather that a single "user", single "linux" type 
solution.

anyway, that's my piece done.  I don't mean to sound dismissive of your 
call for a Common linux audio layer, as I think it is a start at 
defining just where linux might head in the long term.  I just think, if 
someone wanted to roll a distro that had this, the technologies are 
already there to do it - just restrict the user to use the apps that 
suit such a unified vision.  Restrictions are after all what makes 
windows "easy to use".  I wouldn't however, wish to place restrictions 
on existing distros by mandating that they must ALL use the same, and 
hence common, audio layer for the distributions.  Perhaps what you are 
calling for if the same thing that Linspire, or Sun with their Java 
Desktop thingimy are trying to do, and that is a common-user-centric 
(cuc!) distribution that is conifgured to run out of the box.  What I 
think both these distros/environments have in common is that have a 
fairly well conceived user in mind.  That isn't me.  This user, being 
me, is quite happy, if not impressed with the current solutions 
available in all their diversity, strengths and weaknesses, and all 
things considered wouldn't want my linux any other way.

best regards

Michael Noble