Linux-audio-dev

linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

7501 discussions

Re: [LAD] jack client autoconnection (fwd)

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Jonatan Liljedahl: >> >> >> Thanks for clearing up. But I'm pretty sure your idea is too >> simple. We also need a way to create ports which are not >> autoconnected. >> >> The ideal way, if we follow this thread of thinking, would >> be to add another type of jack_port_register function, which >> does not autoconnect: >> >> jack_port_register_no_autoconnect(client,...); >> >> However, this new API will break a lot of current programs >> which are using the old jack_port_register function instead. >> Infact I don't think there is any (sane) way to make your >> proposal work without creating lots of mess with ports >> in old programs who are autoconnecting when it shouldn't. > > I think my proposal with a JackPortAutoConnect bit in JackPortFlags is > sane, it would not break old applications; they would continue to > function exactly as they are now. but updated code can get rid of their > own autoconnection and use this autoconnect bit in the flags to > jack_port_register() instead. > Yes, as long as JackPortAutoConnect is false by default, that's definietely a sane solution. Its basically the same kind of proposal I made, just using a flag to jack_port_register instead of a new function. But there is one problem with it: jack_client_t *client=... jack_port_t *out_port[0]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); jack_port_t *out_port[1]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); <something happens> jack_port_t *new_out_port[0]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); jack_port_t *new_out_port[1]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); The problem is that new_out_port[0] and new_out_port[1] will connect to physical port number 2 and 3 instead of 0 and 1. How do you fix this problem without adding a new function to jacklib?

17 years, 5 months

ALSA & daemon

by Fons Adriaensen

Is there any reason why raw ALSA MIDI streams would stop working if the process that opened them switches to daemon mode ? (see mand daemon(3)) Ciao, -- FA Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica Parma, Italia Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.

17 years, 5 months

Re: [LAD] [OT] an ogg vorbis player for Java ME mobile phones?

by Joern Nettingsmeier

nick, thanks for your reply - i guess you intended it to go to the list as well? anyway, in case anyone else is interested, Nick Bailey wrote: > http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/ any use? cool, thanks! it's not java ME, but SE, but i may be able to steal code from it. best, jörn -- jörn nettingsmeier home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/ http://spunk.dnsalias.org phone://+49/201/491621 Kurt is up in Heaven now.

17 years, 5 months

Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Fons Adriaensen: > >> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 23:36 +0100, Yann Orlarey wrote: >> >>> A fully functional jack application can be easily generated using the >>> faust2jack command or by pasting the above code in the online faust >>> compiler (http://faust.grame.fr). The performances on my Vaio laptop >>> (Intel Core 2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz) is approximately of 2%. >> >> I think they call that "game, set and match". > > Not really, but still I'm impressed :-) > > - Even fdelay4 is not up to the task. There are > gain variations of more than 6dB for a 20 kHz > signal, Fs = 48 kHz. Even stranger, they are > not symmetric w.r.t. the fraction of the delay, > e.g. 10.3 samples shows a different gain than > 9.7. Which makes me suspicious. > > - My usual grunge: unless you want me accidentally > destroy some very expensive equipment which is not > even mine, the generated JACK apps > > MUST NOT AUTOCONNECT --- NEVER --- TO ANYTHING. > We discussed this two years ago. I both respect and understand your reasons to take your position on this issue, but I still strongly disagree with you, and I also think its a bit sad that you use such strong wording about an issue which there clearly are two different views upon. Its also sad if you destroy your equipment, but you are actually yourself to blame if it happens. And just to repeat my position: Unless someone can make it probable that most people prefer jack applications not to autoconnect by default, all jack programs should autoconnect by default. Anyway, this is a jack-dev issue, and there are various ways to fix the jack server so that it will be possible to turn off autoconnect [1] for those who prefer so. However, you (the non-autoconnect people) must push this new API or functionality into jack, because the rest of us are satisfied with the current situation where almost all jack clients autoconnect by default, and therefore its unlikely for us to find the motivation to push this. [1] One simple hack you can do is simply just to create some new dummy ports and set those as being the system default instead of the real system default. That hack shouldn't take more than a few hours to implement. If you feel so strongly about this issue, you should make such a modification to jack. Note, this is just a hack to fix the problem temorarily, not a long-term solution.

17 years, 5 months

Jackdmp

by alex stone

As a complete aside to the gaiety and good natured frollocking going in the GPL discussion, I'm writing to say thanks to Stephane and the Jackdmp team. I've installed the latest incarnation (0.69), and it works a treat. The system's never run so well. Thanks fellas, your skill and determination is appreciated. Alex Stone.

17 years, 5 months

Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Darren Landrum: > > Okay, I'll see if I can make up for my awful post from before with a > constructive question. > > If you wanted to quickly prototype an idea for a DSP routine, how would > you go about it? It would need to work in real-time, but it wouldn't > really need to be super-efficient for testing ideas. > > Thank you for the help. > For quick and interactive, imperative or functional, realtime or non-realtime, development of dsp routines, clm is your choice: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/ and in realtime: http://www.notam02.no/arkiv/doc/snd-rt/ Lots of example code: http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/snd/cvs-snd/clm-ins.scm?view=log http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/snd/cvs-snd/animals.scm?view=log http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/snd/cvs-snd/dsp.scm?view=log + many other files. If you don't need tight feedback loops (As Albert calls it), you might want to look at pd, csound, supercollider, etc. instead. If you _really_ like functional programming and aren't afraid to learn a really different syntax, faust might probably be a very good alternative. I don't think you'll get the kind of tight interactive development environment with it as the other systems though. ie. you have to write code, compile up, run test, etc., while in the other systems, you can just write code and test directly.

17 years, 5 months

Re: [LAD] jack client autoconnection

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Fons Adriaensen: > Well, for the record, I am a professional user in every sense > of the word you could imagine. I'm being paid to design and > develop audio systems running on Linux, and that is my main > source of income. > > If it works, and if it doesn't make a mess of the calibrated > gains for each channel, and if you can convince the users of > this system that they need it, you will be paid very well and > then you can consider yourself a professional. You can be as much of a professional user as you want to. It doesn't change the fact that other professionals might not want the system to behave like you do. >A simple environment variable tested by >all apps will do (e.g. something similar to 'EDITOR' which >is used by most apps that need to start a text editor). > >Any app that directly connects to the sound card, without >even offering the option not to do so, is like a musician >walking into a studio and plugging his synth directly in >the the control room's power amps. Even if he promises not >to do that again next time, there's a good chance he won't >be welcome anymore. We agree about this. Snd has the environment variable SND_AUTOCONNECT_PORT, or something, but a common name for all programs would be much better.

17 years, 5 months

REACT for Linux

by Joshua Boyd

Has anyone had a chance to look at this? http://www.sgi.com/products/software/react/linux_overview.html Does anyone know if it really adds any capabilities other than some debugging tools over regular real time linux?

17 years, 5 months

Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 " isn't well thought out ?" LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)

by pete shorthose

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500 Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +0000, pete > shorthose wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +0000, pete > > > shorthose wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 > > > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +0000, pete > > > > > shorthose wrote: > > > > > > virtually nobody cares what you think. > > > > > > how's that? > > > > > > > > > > Virtually nobody even knows who you > > > > > are, let alone what you think. How's > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very > > > > active on this list nor in the community > > > > in general. it's even truer in the wider > > > > context. so, pejorative implications > > > > aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement > > > > to make. quite what it has to do with the > > > > matter at hand, i'm not so sure. > > > > > > You started it, don't complain when you get > > > what's coming ;) > > > > ok. get back to me when you can justify your > > statement with something other then an ad > > hominem. > > Um... > > You say X to me. > I say X to you. hardly. even if you missed the point (which i doubt, having sparred with you on irc numerous times, to altogether more humorous effect) i even explained on irc that it was not intended as an insult, that i was illustrating an invalid debating tactic by using it against you. in order to tackle it directly you cannot avoid undermining your own use of it. and you knew it too. hence you changed the subject to how i was a nobody and hence irrelevant. now, in the scheme of things, that may even be true, but it doesn't make me wrong. so there, that's cleared that up. _again_. > You accuse me of ad hominem. indeed. you didn't tackle my point directly, preferring instead to question my right to criticise you at all for reasons unrelated to the topic of discussion. text book ad hominem. i doubt that even you would attempt to dispute that. (well, perhaps doubt is too strong a word) > I'll get back to you when you know something > about discourse other than being able to quote > fancy words you don't seem to understand. you just served up some fresh insults and still didn't justify what you said. i tell you, i'm not in the least bit fucking surprised. now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy combination of pejoratives and craft them into a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket because i'm well and truly done talking to you. i might as well be debating an ATM. cheers, pete.

17 years, 5 months

[OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

by Mlf Conv

Hi, I'd like to clarify a few questions regarding GPL and LinuxSampler. The GPL implicitly prohibits third parties from selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, by only allowing the following, quoting GPL: "...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee..." "... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..." "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Basically: 1. selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL and 2. charging a fee for distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL / charging for a physical act of transferring a copy are 2 entirely different things. When you sell a computer program you are charging for the costs(human resources - developers, designers; technical resources - computers etc) you have put into *developing a computer program* plus you are charging an adittional fee based on your estimation of value that your product would have on the market(offer/demand stuff) When you distribute a computer program or charge a fee for physical act of transferring a copy you are charging for the costs you have put into *distribution of a computer program* plus you are charging an additional fee based on your estimation of value that your *distribution service* would have on the market. This means that: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. 2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. No.1 of course has an exception, you would have to sell a computer that has a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL installed on it as a part of distribution, for the purpose of selling the computer(for example with preinstalled Linux distribution) No.2 has several scenarios: a) a distribution is an obvious case where a given computer program licensed under the terms of GPL is a part of a bigger software product, the sole purpose of which is to distribute, thus a distribution is fully GPL compliant whether made available for transfer at no charge, or selled as a package in stores. b) a scenario where computer program must not be modified in order to become part of another comuter program "...thus forming a work based on the Program..." This means that if a computer program as a whole, whether modified or not, becomes part of another computer program at *source-code* level, then the terms of GPL apply to such derived work. You can derive a work from another at source code level(by modifying the original, by adding code to it while not modifying the original, or both) but you can also derive a work at binary level. And if fact, the GPL doesn't differentiate between source-code and binary level derived works: "...any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof..." So suppose a software developer goes on developing a cool GUI for a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL which he intends to sell. The GUI talks to the GPLed computer program via some kind of IPC. He can claim that he's charging for his own program and distributing the GPLed computer program along with it, since the two are in fact 2 separate applications that communicate through IPC. This might be true, but consider the following - the GPLed computer program is capable of functioning as a standalone application, whereas the GUI application is practically useless without the GPLed computer program, ans is thus a derived work at *binary-level*. The GPL states, that "...in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program...", which means, whether at source code level or binary level. This has the following consequences: A proprietary computer program that is not capable of functioning as a standalone computer program, and is communicating with a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, in order to ensure its purpose and proper functioning, is a derived work under the terms of GPL, thus the terms of GPL apply to such work, and a software developer of such proprietary computer program is *also* violating the terms of GPL by not distributing the computer program licensed under the terms of GPL for the sole purpose of distributing it. So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception "LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception at all, and is already covered by GPL. If someone finds such interpretation too vague for his own taste, he can simply make an amendment to the GPL license, stating that you can only charge for distribution of Program for the sole purpose of distributing it, but not for the actual Program, which would basically equal to the above mentioned exception. Also note that this only applies to *third parties*, not the actual copyright holder. He can issue another license if someone finds GPL too restrictive for his needs, and charge for it. So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program. Marek

17 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Linux-audio-dev