8 Aug
2009
8 Aug
'09
8:22 a.m.
On 08/08/2009 08:18 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
It's a fact that people complain about it and it is a problem for them
but it is not a fact that it is a problem with Linux or all Linux
software or the kernel or pretty much any of the most stable and mature
apps in the open source world.
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:30:33AM +0200, Ralf
Mardorf wrote:
Okay, this sounds plausible. I only wanted to point out, as I've written
in another mail, while you replied, that not everybody, but some people
have troubles because of resources, only when using Linux. There might
be different reasons for this, but it's a fact that this is a problem
and I guess this is something that could be fixed.
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio
applications don't have
EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20 LADSPA EQs
to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows applications that come
with an EQ by default for every added channel. Do you think each time
you add a new channel, they also add a copy of the same EQ routine to
the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ is shared by all
channels, one after the other, but anyhow with different EQ setting?
The code will be shared, and for a typical channel strip EQ
it's peanuts anyway. Then there's per-instance data which
again for an normal EQ isn't anything to worry about.
It's the GUI that takes up most of the resources. Most
of the GUI code will be shared with other parts, but the
data won't.
Ciao,
It's not very smart to compare different OSs and
applications, I'm sorry
that I tend to do this. It would be better to describe some approaches
and to describe the good and bad experiences just for Linux applications.
Yes.
This is the correct way to approach Linux lists.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev