4 Jul
2005
4 Jul
'05
1:43 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 02:32 +0200, Kjetil Svalastog
Matheussen wrote:
Okey, sorry, I don't know that much about ALSA.
But I think it would be wrong to remove the OSS API anyway. Many old
programs that only use OSS will probably not be updated to use a different
API, so removing it will irriate people a lot.
And I don't think your argument about removing the OSS api to avoid
encouraging is valid at all. If there is a nice bridge for OSS that calls
alsa/dmix or jack or something, I don't see anything wrong about (certain)
programs (like SKYPE, mediaplayers...) using OSS.
Lee Revell:
I strongly disagree with you about this. Ross approach sounds like whats
needed. The OSS API is easier to understand and leads to less bugs and
less programming time. For programs like SKYPE, mediaplayers and other
types of non-realtime-sound applications, I really think programmers
should go for OSS instead of accessing ALSA directly.
And, as mentioned before, ALSA is linux only (except for alsa 0.5 which
was partly used in older versions QNX I think).
It's just as easy to read() and write() with ALSA as OSS. And if you
were designing a cross platform audio app now, OSS would also be a poor
choice, you would use PortAudio.
> It was in response to problems such as these
that I began work on a
> half-kernel, half-userspace system for emulating OSS devices. It's
been
> a while since I've done anything with it
but if there's any interest
in
such a
system I could put my code (such as it is) up for download.
No!!! That's exactly the wrong approach, it will only encourage
applications to use the OSS API. Do you really still want to be using
the same ancient binary-only flashplayer/realplayer plugin for 5 more
years?
Why don't you ask the Skype developers when they plan to support ALSA?
Or figure out why it crashes with aoss?