Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] Still I cannot understand why...
From: STEFFL, ERIK *Internet* (SBCSI) ("STEFFL,)
Date: Thu Dec 20 2001 - 23:49:02 EET
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivica Bukvic [mailto:ico_AT_fuse.net]
>
> > care != contribute
>
> According to the English dictionary, you are right. But analyzing a
> "brick" out of the "buiding" perspective is what gets you in
> trouble: if
> you were more sensitive to the context and realized that this
> discussion
> is being held in the Linux audio DEVELOPMENT list, it would
> be easy then
> to assume that both you and I ARE contributing to the Linux
> community by
> developing/coding. So, if you don't have anything better then
> providing
> a thesaurus to this list, please either use LAU list, or start using
> that free time churning code (or even better providing ports to all of
> your alternative OS's that you so dearly care for).
please stop being ridiculous.
BTW what I provided is what dictionary provides, not thesaurus.
contribute: writing actual code (or docs etc.) for other platform
care: picking up portable language, writing portable code, choosing
libraries etc. that are available for different platform etc. (not that
portability should be the only reason to choose tools, all I say is that it
should be taken into account)
> > BTW2 I mostly use intel pc, I care for other platforms for reason
> hinted
> > above...
>
> Well then you surely have a lot to care for. Good luck!
>
> Designing a well implemented driver/app is one thing, while porting it
> is other, and as such they should be held separate. Design
> should always
> take precedence, obviously, while porting should be a project of the
> benefactor [at least in the non-paying world], not of provider, and as
> such, again should be separate. Thus, not "caring" for the
> porting part
> of the endeavors simply means that this should not be my priority or
> something I need to worry about. People who ported first audio apps to
> Linux (i.e. Mxv), were simply persons who HAD some interest
> in Linux and
> thus did so, regardless of OSS. Case and point: RT which is originally
> Paul Lansky's creation that ran on SGI and had nothing to do with OSS
> since SGI's audio architecture is/was way better than the OSS's -- its
> port was done by both Mike Peterson and Doug Scott, people
> who actually
> cared about/used Linux and worked out their own ways of porting it to
> Linux architecture using whatever they had at their disposal
> in terms of
> audio API). Paul Lansky, according to your messed-up view, should be
> then proclaimed "selfish" [or whatever that means for you] for not
> providing ported app to the Linux OS [both architectures are
it might be messed up but it's not my view. please do not attribute to me
views that I explicitly wrote I do not hold. I've already written few times
that I don't say anybody should provide ported application.
> *nix, after
> all, right? -- even more so nowadays, since SGI is switching/ has
> already switched to Linux]...
>
> Quite on the contrary, my friend, Paul Lansky provided a
> great tool that
> is still being used nowadays (and should be under no circumstances
> called selfish for doing so), and thanks to Mike and Doug are
of course.
and nothing I've written implied that he should be called selfish for
providing the program.
he, theoretically might have been selfish in not caring about portability,
but when you sum it up (providing the tool, but not caring about
portability) it is still quite positive (i.e. over-all not selfish). I have
already written this same thing already which makes your statement above
quite surprising.
> we able to
> enjoy the same app on our favorite OS.
>
> Since you are so well versed in the usage of your thesaurus, next time
> be more careful in the usage of the words within the given context...
don't talk non-sense. please.
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Dec 20 2001 - 23:44:57 EET