9 Apr
2005
9 Apr
'05
12:05 a.m.
Jean-Marc Valin:
Hi,
I think a part of the conversation I had with Con Kolivas may be of
interest here:
<jmspeex> I still don't understand why this [unprivileged real-time]
hasn't gone in the kernel a long time ago.
<---->
<con> jmspeex since lkml is so hopeless as a
forum for that sort of
thing, feel free to start an online petition to show how many people
there are. 1 of 2 things will happen - 1. you'll have thousands signing
up, or 2. there are less people doing it than you think
This shouldn't be a problem. There are about 2300 subscribers to the
linux-audio-user mailing-list:
http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/subscribe.php
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
9 Apr
9 Apr
12:14 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of
us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this "arrogant lkml-people" attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not signed as "Jean-Marc Valin", but
"Speex maintainer" (Jack maintainer, GnomeMeeting, ...). I'm sure this
would give a lot more weight to the proposition.
Jean-Marc
--
Jean-Marc Valin <Jean-Marc.Valin(a)USherbrooke.ca>
Université de Sherbrooke
12:37 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
Why do you want letters from project maintainers only? Don't you want
user letters as well?
Iain
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
If someone sets
up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this "arrogant lkml-people" attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not signed as "Jean-Marc Valin", but
"Speex maintainer" (Jack maintainer, GnomeMeeting, ...). I'm sure this
would give a lot more weight to the proposition.
Jean-Marc
12:40 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
i would have though a petition from *users* who have gone through the
hell of trying to set up their linux system for audio would be a *lot*
better than, from what i can tell, is an already exhausted path ...
i'm sure the maintainers/developers of linux audio projects could give a
lot more *authority* but i'm sure us users could lend a lot more *weight*.
anyhow, why not do the obvious and combine the two approaches - the
developers/maintainers can draft a petitionary letter to the Kernel
developers, signed as you suggest "Speex maintainer" etc. this can then
be put up on an appropriately set up website where LAUers can add their
name in support ...
... something along these lines anyway ...
i think it would be a huge mistake, though, to issue any sort of
statement/letter/petition that didn't at least make an *attempt* to
incorporate the large and growing base of Ordinary linux audio users.
shayne
If someone sets
up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this "arrogant lkml-people" attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not signed as "Jean-Marc Valin", but
"Speex maintainer" (Jack maintainer, GnomeMeeting, ...). I'm sure this
would give a lot more weight to the proposition.
1:16 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
i would have though a petition from *users* who have
gone through the
hell of trying to set up their linux system for audio would be a *lot*
better than, from what i can tell, is an already exhausted path ...
i'm sure the maintainers/developers of linux audio projects could give a
lot more *authority* but i'm sure us users could lend a lot more *weight*.
I think I may have spoken a bit too fast on this. Of course I think
users should be included too, though maybe in a second step, I don't
know. Of course, developers (and not only maintainers) should be
included too. The reason I originally said maintainers is that it in
fact means "this project votes for it", also implying all users.
anyhow, why not do the obvious and combine the two
approaches - the
developers/maintainers can draft a petitionary letter to the Kernel
developers, signed as you suggest "Speex maintainer" etc. this can then
be put up on an appropriately set up website where LAUers can add their
name in support ...
I think just developers/maintainers of many packages at the same time
should be enough. Otherwise, yes users will be the last resort (but it's
harder to get them all)
Jean-Marc
--
Jean-Marc Valin <Jean-Marc.Valin(a)USherbrooke.ca>
Université de Sherbrooke
10:28 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 21:46, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
i would have though a petition from *users* who have gone through the
hell of trying to set up their linux system for audio would be a *lot*
better than, from what i can tell, is an already exhausted path ...
i'm sure the maintainers/developers of linux audio projects could give a
lot more *authority* but i'm sure us users could lend a lot more *weight*.
anyhow, why not do the obvious and combine the two approaches - the
developers/maintainers can draft a petitionary letter to the Kernel
developers, signed as you suggest "Speex maintainer" etc. this can then
be put up on an appropriately set up website where LAUers can add their
name in support ...
... something along these lines anyway ...
i think it would be a huge mistake, though, to issue any sort of
statement/letter/petition that didn't at least make an *attempt* to
incorporate the large and growing base of Ordinary linux audio users.
I agree completely. Another thing that Shayne pointed out in an
earlier post is worth mentioning again. There are a ton of people who
would like to dump Windoze and come over but it's too difficult at the
moment. We have a "chicken-and-egg" problem here. Until the system is
ready we won't get users, and those who are in charge of getting the
system ready don't think there are enough users.
Jan
If someone
sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this "arrogant lkml-people" attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not signed as "Jean-Marc Valin", but
"Speex maintainer" (Jack maintainer, GnomeMeeting, ...). I'm sure this
would give a lot more weight to the proposition.
12:58 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
Jean-Marc Valin <Jean-Marc.Valin(a)usherbrooke.ca> writes:
First, please stop this "arrogant
lkml-people" attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not signed as "Jean-Marc Valin", but
"Speex maintainer" (Jack maintainer, GnomeMeeting, ...). I'm sure this
would give a lot more weight to the proposition.
If being an audio developer carried any weight with these people,
you'd think they would listen to Paul Davis or Lee Revell or me. They
don't.
Con Kolivas is one of the good guys. But, the "arrogant fools" don't
listen to him much, either.
Go slowly demanding new scheduler hackery. Ingo and Con both have
good ideas, but neither scheduler worked well enough for prime time in
my testing a couple of months ago.
--
joq
1:25 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
If being an audio developer carried any weight with
these people,
you'd think they would listen to Paul Davis or Lee Revell or me. They
don't.
Then, they might listen to Paul Davis, Lee Revell, you, me, authors of
Vorbis, Theora, GnomeMeeting, and so on at the same time.
Con Kolivas is one of the good guys. But, the
"arrogant fools" don't
listen to him much, either.
As far as I see, Con is mostly having problems showing that there's an
interest. The fact that I'm the only person that tried his new scheduler
didn't help.
Go slowly demanding new scheduler hackery. Ingo and
Con both have
good ideas, but neither scheduler worked well enough for prime time in
my testing a couple of months ago.
If you tried a couple months ago, I think you got something quite
different than what I'm talking about. From what I understand, Ingo had
two ideas (the recent one being better) and Con's SCHED_ISO from a few
months ago didn't have much to do with the recent
SCHED_ISO_FIFO/SCHED_FIFO_RR that really allow real-time scheduling, not
just increased priority. Otherwise, can you comment on what exactly
didn't work well. I only tried Con's patch, but I didn't see any
difference between SCHED_ISO_FIFO and SCHED_FIFO as root. Well the only
difference I saw is that when I did screw up, I could still kill the
app.
Jean-Marc
--
Jean-Marc Valin <Jean-Marc.Valin(a)USherbrooke.ca>
Université de Sherbrooke
2:10 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 23:23 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Everyone on LKML
seemed to agree that Con's scheduler was the best solution proposed, but
will have to wait for 2.7 as it's too intrusive for 2.6. The only
question now for 2.6 is whether the realtime LSM or the rlimit based
solution will be accepted.
Personally I prefer the realtime LSM but would accept the rlimit based
approach. It puts more of a burden on the distro/sysadmin to configure,
as it requires patching PAM and bash and a correct limits.conf
configuration. But from the users point of view the end result is the
same (configure a "realtime" or "audio" group and add users to it).
What I don't understand is that the people that the kernel developers
*do* listen to by default aka the big distros like Red Hat and SuSE, did
not weigh in sooner on this issue. I suspect that specialized needs
like low latency audio are not too high on their priority list. The
"desktop people" at Red Hat still seem to be focused on making the basic
user experience compare favorably to Windows and Mac OS - if the average
laptop can't even boot FC3 and have all the hardware work, they can't be
too worried about the 0.1% of users who want to use their laptop for
live performance.
Lee
If being an
audio developer carried any weight with these people,
you'd think they would listen to Paul Davis or Lee Revell or me. They
don't.
Then, they might listen to Paul Davis, Lee Revell, you, me, authors of
Vorbis, Theora, GnomeMeeting, and so on at the same time.
Con Kolivas is one of the good guys. But, the
"arrogant fools" don't
listen to him much, either.
As far as I see, Con is mostly having problems showing that there's an
interest. The fact that I'm the only person that tried his new scheduler
didn't help.
12:54 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Other real-time options
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Sorry I put things the wrong way. It wasn't ment to be that seriously...
There are some trollish people on lklm though.
If someone
sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this "arrogant lkml-people" attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with
just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not signed as "Jean-Marc Valin", but
"Speex maintainer" (Jack maintainer, GnomeMeeting, ...). I'm sure this
would give a lot more weight to the proposition.
Maybe. But Con asked for users. It might looked like he was in doubt
whether theres thousands of linux audio users, which there clearly must
be by looking at the number of linux-audio-user subscribers.
He (and many other kernel-developer) probably already knows that there
are many linux audio developers.
--
7111
days inactive
7112
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Iain Duncan -
Jack O'Quin -
Jan Depner -
Jean-Marc Valin -
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen -
Lee Revell -
Shayne O'Connor