Re: [linux-audio-dev] plugin format

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] plugin format
From: David Olofson (audiality_AT_swipnet.se)
Date: ke elo    25 1999 - 15:59:54 EDT


Dave Phillips wrote:
>
> David Olofson wrote:
>
> > Will look at Xmms. Do you know of a site/doc with specs, or where I can
> > get source easiest? (Will look around - just wondering if you have a
> > link handy.)
>
> http://www.xmms.org

Thanks! :-)

> Guenter is still polishing his plug-in API. He'll probably announce its
> completion here.

Ok...

> > Certainly. Now that Ingo Molnar have hacked the kernel where Benno
> > Senoner found latency problems, and we're approaching BeOS class
> > performance, we'll probably hear from developers and vendors.
>
> I didn't realize there was another active linux-sound mail list where
> Alan Cox hangs out. Can anyone direct me to subscription information ?

Oh, this was on linux-kernel_AT_veger.rutgers.edu, not a multimedia
specific list.

> > ...BeOS will be history. (Nice OS,
> > but it's still proprietary, and I have seen to many of those die,
> > regardless of their qualities... I will not go there.)
>
> As nice as it looks, its closed-source nature is a major turn-off for
> me.

Same for me. I haven't seen so much interesting code to read in years as
in the Linux kernel, and being able to hack anything or borrow what you
need somewhere else, is incredibly valuable when dealing with hard real
time and other special stuff. RTLinux wouldn't even exist if it weren't
for that possibility.

> I've also not seen the expected flood of great applications expected
> for it. If Linux can resolve latency and filesystem problems affecting
> audio, then our platform will indeed become much more attractive to
> professional developers. But they're going to want to see the money
> trail...

Well, when all those serious hobby, semi-pro and pro users constantly
complaining about the latency and unreliability of Windoze and Mac gets
to know what's going on around here, and refuse to buy more half-way
"solutions" for those systesm, the developers will come here.

This is about so superior performance that no marketing in the world can
hide the fact that Windoze can never catch up, even if M$ should decide
to throw in a real time kernel and yet another bunch of APIs... True
*hard* real time with 5 ms in user space or less than .5 ms under
RTLinux, is a level of performance not available on any other desktop
OS, BeOS included.

(According to some pro developers, BeOS isn't hard real time, and
therefore has the same problems as Windoze and MacOS, even though the
performance is better. Haven't verified this myself, as the
"proprietary" obstacle is too big anyway.)

//David


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:53 EST