Re: [linux-audio-user] Common linux audio layer

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