At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:51:59 +0200 (CEST),
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> >> Sory Alan but I don't want philosophical/historical discuss.
> >> Try to answer on question "ALSA or OSS ?" using *only* technical arguments.
> >
> > We dropped OSS for ALSA for technical reasons. Those being that ALSA
> > - has a better audio API
> 
> How better and where better ?
> Please be more verbose :>
> 
> > - is more flexible
> 
> Yes .. if you have API with thin abstracttion (like ALSA has) theoreticaly 
> you can do more but also by lack of some abstraction normal/usual things 
> must be implemented in harder way. This was theory .. pracice is completly 
> diffrent because some applications still provides better soud support 
> (without interruption) when uses OSS emulation placed on top ALSA layer 
> than compiled for direct use ALSA API.
> 
> Sound it in not rocket science. In 99.9% cases you need well abstracted 
> API which ALSA doe not provide and this is real cause why so poor sound 
> support in Linux applications is. Thin ALSA abstraction is main cause of 
> avalaibability "tons" of additional soud user space APIs.

I disagree about this.  Tons of various user-space APIs would be
created anyway.  It's the nature of FOSS developemnt.


Takashi
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/