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
Received on Sat Jan 8 08:15:03 2005