Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Kevin Conder]

> > > Kai Vehmanen wrote on Thu, 07 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800:
> > >
> > > Why is ALSA the better alternative?
> > > Have I missed some important points?
> >
> > Kevin Conder wrote:
> > 
> >         OSS has one crucial advantage over ALSA: documentation!
> > Perhaps one day ALSA will have something like the Programmer's Guide
> > to OSS. Check it out at http://www.opensound.com/pguide/
>
> Daniel Caujolle-Bert:
>
>        And this is a nice troll.

	A troll is an email that is posted to elicit a huge amount of
responses. (Example: What is the best audio editor?) I don't think my
email was a troll. I'm amazed that it even got this response.

	Kai was asking if he missed some important points. I think
documentation is an important point. I didn't imagine that it would
be so controversial.

>       Do you want to write this documentation, i guess developper 
> team will help you.

	I have helped in small ways, wherever I can. I've helped with the
ALSA HOWTO and other projects. Unfortunately, I could never get ALSA 0.9.x
to compile so I'm still using 0.5 for now.

	As far getting help from the developer team, they weren't very
patient about my compilation problems... I've posted other requests like
re-opening the alsa-doc mailing list that have been ignored. I don't mean
any offense to the ALSA developers, I realize that they're really busy
right now. 

	So I'm waiting for things to stabilize, that's why I said "one
day..."

>        I'm amazed how some people are so strong with their mouth !

	This sentence is very confusing but I think it's supposed to be a
personal attack. I really don't know what to do at this point... Would
changing my message to "ALSA is missing something like The Programmer's
Guide to OSS" be better?


-- Kevin Conder, kevin@kevindumpscore.com




_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Daniel Caujolle-Bert]

Hi,

Kevin Conder wrote:
> 
> > > > Kai Vehmanen wrote on Thu, 07 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800:
> > > >
> > > > Why is ALSA the better alternative?
> > > > Have I missed some important points?
> > >
> > > Kevin Conder wrote:
> > >
> > >         OSS has one crucial advantage over ALSA: documentation!
> > > Perhaps one day ALSA will have something like the Programmer's Guide
> > > to OSS. Check it out at http://www.opensound.com/pguide/
> >
> > Daniel Caujolle-Bert:
> >
> >        And this is a nice troll.
> 
>         A troll is an email that is posted to elicit a huge amount of
> responses. (Example: What is the best audio editor?) I don't think my
> email was a troll. I'm amazed that it even got this response.

	The main fact is 4Front is a commercial society, they ship
binary only drivers. I think there are many people working in this
society, and some are probably working on the documentation.
	Take a look at CVS logs, i don't see dozen of devels, are
you agree. So, i think there's a time to code THEN there a time 
to build docs (the doxygen sections in code are oftenly updated).

	This is why i think there is a non-sense in this *advandage*
of OSS here.

> 
>         Kai was asking if he missed some important points. I think
> documentation is an important point. I didn't imagine that it would
> be so controversial.
> 
> >       Do you want to write this documentation, i guess developper
> > team will help you.
> 
>         I have helped in small ways, wherever I can. I've helped with the
> ALSA HOWTO and other projects. Unfortunately, I could never get ALSA 0.9.x
> to compile so I'm still using 0.5 for now.

	Already today ?. I haven'y seen a compilation problem for a long
time now. Have you tried latest official beta release ?

>         As far getting help from the developer team, they weren't very
> patient about my compilation problems... I've posted other requests like
> re-opening the alsa-doc mailing list that have been ignored. I don't mean
> any offense to the ALSA developers, I realize that they're really busy
> right now.

	Developpers can't spend too much time in user support, this is 
another job i think. They just can show you a the way, most of the
time.

>         So I'm waiting for things to stabilize, that's why I said "one
> day..."

	Why waiting, help them, if you have time, if you want help the
world. I'm pretty sure if you try another time, you will get feedback
from Alsa devels and Alsa client devels to write a nice Alsa
Programmer's
Guide, since alsa09 is largely used in native mode.

> 
> >        I'm amazed how some people are so strong with their mouth !
> 
>         This sentence is very confusing but I think it's supposed to be a
> personal attack. I really don't know what to do at this point... Would
> changing my message to "ALSA is missing something like The Programmer's
> Guide to OSS" be better?

	This mean, critisism is so easy, helping people is another
story. And yes, the message is better, less offending (as my point
of view, even if i'm not an Alsa devel (lucky are they ;-) ).

Cheers.
-- 
73's de Daniel, F1RMB.

              -=- Daniel Caujolle-Bert -=- segfault@club-internet.fr -=-
                        -=- f1rmb@f1rmb.ampr.org (AMPR NET) -=-

_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Martijn Sipkema]

> .... So, i think there's a time to code THEN there a time 
> to build docs (the doxygen sections in code are oftenly updated).
> 
> This is why i think there is a non-sense in this *advandage*
> of OSS here.

I don't agree. Good documentation is essential and I see the lack
of it as a serious problem for ALSA.

> Why waiting, help them, if you have time, if you want help the
> world. I'm pretty sure if you try another time, you will get feedback
> from Alsa devels and Alsa client devels to write a nice Alsa
> Programmer's
> Guide, since alsa09 is largely used in native mode.

It's not that easy to write documentation without documentation.
This would be best done by the people who wrote the API I
think. It would take some time, but then again it is a matter of
where the priorities are. I think documentation is very important,
and in the long run would gain other developers' contribution
and make life easier for the ALSA core developer team.

> This mean, critisism is so easy, helping people is another
> story. And yes, the message is better, less offending (as my point
> of view, even if i'm not an Alsa devel (lucky are they ;-) ).

The message did not seem offending to me. Your message on the
other hand struck me as a little rude.

--martijn



_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Jaroslav Kysela]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Martijn Sipkema wrote:

> > .... So, i think there's a time to code THEN there a time 
> > to build docs (the doxygen sections in code are oftenly updated).
> > 
> > This is why i think there is a non-sense in this *advandage*
> > of OSS here.
> 
> I don't agree. Good documentation is essential and I see the lack
> of it as a serious problem for ALSA.
> 
> > Why waiting, help them, if you have time, if you want help the
> > world. I'm pretty sure if you try another time, you will get feedback
> > from Alsa devels and Alsa client devels to write a nice Alsa
> > Programmer's
> > Guide, since alsa09 is largely used in native mode.
> 
> It's not that easy to write documentation without documentation.
> This would be best done by the people who wrote the API I
> think. It would take some time, but then again it is a matter of
> where the priorities are. I think documentation is very important,
> and in the long run would gain other developers' contribution
> and make life easier for the ALSA core developer team.

I don't know, if you are noticed, that some documentation already exist at
http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib . It is build from sources
via doxygen. I think that PCM API descriptions has good backgrounds with a
few examples. The problem is, that I'm not English native writer and
always busy with other maintaince things, so definitely, I can't create
perfect English documentation. I tried several times to ask for help on
alsa-devel, but - as you can see - I got only rare critics. It would be
really helpful from developers to give some feedback and/or rephase my
texts.

						Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@suse.cz>
Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer
ALSA Project  http://www.alsa-project.org
SuSE Linux    http://www.suse.com


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Helping with documentation.

[Kevin Conder]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:

> I don't know, if you are noticed, that some documentation already exist at
> http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib .

	Could you generate a tar-ball of the HTML pages for off-line use?
A PDF would also be nice. 

> The problem is, that I'm not English native writer and
> always busy with other maintaince things, so definitely, I can't create
> perfect English documentation.
> It would be
> really helpful from developers to give some feedback and/or rephase my
> texts.

	I ran all of the pages through a spell checker. I noticed spelling
mistakes already in a few places...

* The word "constants" is misspelled in various ways.
* The word "highlevel" should be two words: "high level".
* The word "identificator" should probably be "identifier".
* Sometimes the word "obtain" is misspelled as "obatin".
* Sometimes the word "occurred" is misspelled as "occured".
* Sometimes the word "portamento" is misspelled as "pornamento" or 
"portnamento".
* Sometimes the word "sustenuto" is misspelled as "sostenuto".


	Please note that "pornamento" and "portnamento" occur in constants
(in asoundef.h, IIRC). Correcting them could possibly have an adverse
effect on existing code. What should we do?

	I don't know how to send in this feedback. Unless someone tells me
otherwise, I'll create patches and post them here. My next phase is to
check for grammar mistakes.


-- Kevin Conder, kevin@kevindumpscore.com



_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: Helping with documentation.

[Jaroslav Kysela]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Kevin Conder wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> 
> > I don't know, if you are noticed, that some documentation already exist at
> > http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib .
> 
> 	Could you generate a tar-ball of the HTML pages for off-line use?
> A PDF would also be nice. 

Can you work with doxygen (www.doxygen.org)? It would be easier to send 
patches against sources, otherwise merging of changes is complicated for me.

> > The problem is, that I'm not English native writer and
> > always busy with other maintaince things, so definitely, I can't create
> > perfect English documentation.
> > It would be
> > really helpful from developers to give some feedback and/or rephase my
> > texts.
> 
> 	I ran all of the pages through a spell checker. I noticed spelling
> mistakes already in a few places...
> 
> * The word "constants" is misspelled in various ways.
> * The word "highlevel" should be two words: "high level".
> * The word "identificator" should probably be "identifier".
> * Sometimes the word "obtain" is misspelled as "obatin".
> * Sometimes the word "occurred" is misspelled as "occured".
> * Sometimes the word "portamento" is misspelled as "pornamento" or 
> "portnamento".
> * Sometimes the word "sustenuto" is misspelled as "sostenuto".
> 
> 
> 	Please note that "pornamento" and "portnamento" occur in constants
> (in asoundef.h, IIRC). Correcting them could possibly have an adverse
> effect on existing code. What should we do?

I changed it immediately.

> 	I don't know how to send in this feedback. Unless someone tells me
> otherwise, I'll create patches and post them here. My next phase is to
> check for grammar mistakes.

Thank you.

						Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@suse.cz>
Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer
ALSA Project  http://www.alsa-project.org
SuSE Linux    http://www.suse.com


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Jussi Laako]

Daniel Caujolle-Bert wrote:
> 
>         The main fact is 4Front is a commercial society, they ship
> binary only drivers. I think there are many people working in this
> society, and some are probably working on the documentation.

This "society" consist of two people (AFAIK)...


	- Jussi Laako

-- 
PGP key fingerprint: 161D 6FED 6A92 39E2 EB5B  39DD A4DE 63EB C216 1E4B
Available at PGP keyservers


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

RE: ALSA vs OSS/free

[James Courtier-Dutton]

As a programmer, alsa is just much easier to use.
alsa provides a consistent api interface for all sound cards thanks to the
alsa-lib. (shared user space code)
So, if I write an app for my sound card, I can be pretty sure the app will
work on all other sound cards.

With OSS/Free, hardly any of the drivers support all the OSS api features,
so the application has to do work arounds if certain api features are not
present. To me that is messy.

Alsa should always be considered as a low level driver to drive the hardware
and nothing more.
Then one can put ardour and jack on top, for extra features.

Cheers
James


> -----Original Message-----
> From: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
> [mailto:alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Kai Vehmanen
> Sent: 07 March 2002 13:56
> To: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net;
> linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Alsa-devel] ALSA vs OSS/free
>
>
> Why is ALSA the better alternative? That's a question I've been asked
> quite a few times recently. Below is a reply I just wrote to
> ecasound-list. I'd be very interested in hearing your comments on this
> issue. Have I missed some important points?
>
> One thing that seems be causing a lot of confusion is performance and
> latency comparisons. While ALSA provides many things that make it easier
> for developers to reach better performance and low latency, similar
> results can be achieved with well-written OSS drivers and applications.
>
> Only in few specific cases (multichannel noninterleaved soundcards, etc)
> ALSA provides a clear advantage. From marketing point of view I think it's
> wise to acknowledge this. But there are other reasons why future looks
> bright for ALSA:
>
> --cut--
> > Philosophically (and technically) speaking, are there real
> advantages for
> > me to install alsa (other than the above) when OSS/free works for me? I
>
> If OSS works for you, then no. ALSA's primary advantages are:
>
> [common]
> - separation of kernel and user-space code [all]
> 	- ALSA library can provide more functionality to
> 	  applications (format conversions, sharing soundcard
> 	  resources, dsp plugins)
> 	- benefits ALSA-native apps
> [alsa-kernel/alsa-driver]
> - better driver architecture
> 	- more shared code between drivers for
> 	  different soundcards
> 	-> fixes and improvements to common code affect all
> 	   drivers
> 	-> drivers behave more uniformly
> 	- benefits both ALSA-native and apps using OSS-emulation
> - support for pro-level soundcards without performance problems
> 	- for instance handling devices that only support
> 	  noninterleaved buffer layout
> 	- befefits ALSA-native apps (and in some cases also
> 	  apps using OSS-emulation)
> [alsa-lib]
> - better API for applications [alsa-lib]
> 	- more flexible configuration of various parameters
> 	- well-designed API for acquiring realtime status
>           information (for various playback/capture
> 	  synchronation purposes)
> 	- benefits ALSA-native apps
>
> So shortly put, ALSA provides a better framework for writing drivers and
> for developing audio applications.  When comparing OSS/Free and ALSA from
> an end-user's point of view, it comes down to the quality of the drivers
> for the soundcard type in question, and the specific applications that are
> used. Some OSS/Free drivers are very good and support all OSS API
> features. If this is the case and all apps seem to work ok, you don't have
> much to gain from switching to ALSA... yet.
>
> But because of the abovementioned reasons, over time ALSA drivers and
> applications will become better than OSS versions. I think this is
> inevitable.
> --cut--
>
> --
>  http://www.eca.cx
>  Audio software for Linux!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Emmanuel Fleury]

Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> Why is ALSA the better alternative? 

Is it really related to devel ?????

-- 
Emmanuel

Elegance is not optional.
   -- Richard O'Keefe


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Kai Vehmanen]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:

>> Why is ALSA the better alternative? 
> Is it really related to devel ?????

Yes. One, if not the most, important advantage ALSA has over OSS is the
framework it provides for developers. But it's not clear to everyone
(judging from the questions I get from other developers), what exactly are
the benefits. 

-- 
 http://www.eca.cx
 Audio software for Linux!


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Thierry Vignaud]

Kai Vehmanen <k@eca.cx> writes:
> [alsa-kernel/alsa-driver]
> - better driver architecture
> 	- more shared code between drivers for 
> 	  different soundcards 

       no need to reinvent the wheel in every driver

       distro maintainers build monuments in honor of alsa team
       because of space saving.
       eg: current cooker up kernel (2.4.18-4mdk) has 15Mb of gzipped
       modules: 1.1mb for 54 snd-card-* modules (total: 115 modules)
       vs 683kb for 40 cards modules (total: 49 modules)

       still to do: merge snd-card-es137{0,1} binaries

> - support for pro-level soundcards without performance problems
> 	- for instance handling devices that only support 
> 	  noninterleaved buffer layout
> 	- befefits ALSA-native apps (and in some cases also
> 	  apps using OSS-emulation)

     - support for quite a number of cards not supported by oss/free


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[stef]

ALSA's midi routing/scheduling functionalities are unique.

Without this it would be impossible to use different midi
applications which also interact via midi, sync or share the
same hw interfaces.

For OSS i'm pretty sure you had to write a kernel part first
before you could start to code your midi app.

Stef(an).

_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Dan Hollis]

ALSA has rather complete support of IEC958, compared to OSS. At least for 
hardware that can handle it. I also believe ALSA had multi-open before OSS 
did.

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

Re: ALSA vs OSS/free

[Kevin Conder]

Kai Vehmanen wrote on Thu, 07 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800:

> Why is ALSA the better alternative? That's a question I've been
> asked quite a few times recently. Below is a reply I just wrote 
> to ecasound-list. I'd be very interested in hearing your comments 
> on this issue. Have I missed some important points?

	OSS has one crucial advantage over ALSA: documentation!
Perhaps one day ALSA will have something like the Programmer's Guide to
OSS. Check it out at http://www.opensound.com/pguide/


-- Kevin Conder, kevin@kevindumpscore.com



_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel

ALSA vs OSS/free

[Kai Vehmanen]

Why is ALSA the better alternative? That's a question I've been asked
quite a few times recently. Below is a reply I just wrote to
ecasound-list. I'd be very interested in hearing your comments on this
issue. Have I missed some important points?

One thing that seems be causing a lot of confusion is performance and
latency comparisons. While ALSA provides many things that make it easier
for developers to reach better performance and low latency, similar
results can be achieved with well-written OSS drivers and applications.

Only in few specific cases (multichannel noninterleaved soundcards, etc)
ALSA provides a clear advantage. From marketing point of view I think it's
wise to acknowledge this. But there are other reasons why future looks
bright for ALSA:

--cut--
> Philosophically (and technically) speaking, are there real advantages for 
> me to install alsa (other than the above) when OSS/free works for me? I 

If OSS works for you, then no. ALSA's primary advantages are:

[common]
- separation of kernel and user-space code [all]
	- ALSA library can provide more functionality to 
	  applications (format conversions, sharing soundcard 
	  resources, dsp plugins)
	- benefits ALSA-native apps
[alsa-kernel/alsa-driver]
- better driver architecture
	- more shared code between drivers for 
	  different soundcards 
	-> fixes and improvements to common code affect all 
	   drivers
	-> drivers behave more uniformly
	- benefits both ALSA-native and apps using OSS-emulation
- support for pro-level soundcards without performance problems
	- for instance handling devices that only support 
	  noninterleaved buffer layout
	- befefits ALSA-native apps (and in some cases also
	  apps using OSS-emulation)
[alsa-lib]
- better API for applications [alsa-lib]
	- more flexible configuration of various parameters
	- well-designed API for acquiring realtime status
          information (for various playback/capture 
	  synchronation purposes)
	- benefits ALSA-native apps

So shortly put, ALSA provides a better framework for writing drivers and
for developing audio applications.  When comparing OSS/Free and ALSA from
an end-user's point of view, it comes down to the quality of the drivers
for the soundcard type in question, and the specific applications that are
used. Some OSS/Free drivers are very good and support all OSS API
features. If this is the case and all apps seem to work ok, you don't have
much to gain from switching to ALSA... yet.

But because of the abovementioned reasons, over time ALSA drivers and
applications will become better than OSS versions. I think this is
inevitable.
--cut--

-- 
 http://www.eca.cx
 Audio software for Linux!


_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel