Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ALSA vs OSS/free
From: Nick D (nixx_AT_nixx.org.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 01:20:28 EET
On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:25:34 -0500
Paul Davis <pbd_AT_Op.Net> wrote:
> >heh. Imagine they _did_ port it.. we'd have to come up with a new word to repl
> >ace the "Linux" in ALSA... ;-)
>
> ALSA has been (or was) adopted by QNX, though they started with 0.5.X,
> which was probably a mistake.
Cool, i had no idea. ive only played with QNX briefly, but never noticed that... :)
>
> >quite. especially since linux is capturing most of the unix market share (esp.
> > on the desktop). ALSA on MacOS X anyone? or dare i say Win**?
>
> no point doing it on Mac OS X. CoreAudio is a better API for
True, but still would be cool if ALSA apps could compile and run on other platforms.. (although i totally agree not important or especially useful ;)
> application developers, and its also has a really nice HAL layer for
> device driver authors to conform to. writing a PCI device driver for
> CoreAudio looks like about 1 day's work (though to be fair, ALSA isn't
> much more).
>
> as i've said many times, i think its a mistake to write apps for ALSA
> unless they are generic audio engines. we need to be using APIs that
> represent the correct programming model and don't expose
> hardware-level details unless absolutely necessary. thats what
You mean JACK?
Which kind of apps should use alsa then, just the MuSEs and Audacitys of the world? for example, it makes sense for a soft-synth to use the alsa sequencer for its midi i/o, non?
> CoreAudio is about (as well as several other similar APIs).
>
> --p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 08 2002 - 01:12:14 EET