From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juan Linietsky Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: ALSA homepage redesign Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:17:20 -0300 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20020418141720.5d2b416a.coding@reduz.com.ar> References: <20020418060011.EEE042757@sitemail.everyone.net> <3CBEC605.B2C217C0@zhevny.com> <3CBEC884.2080906@superbug.demon.co.uk> <3CBEF1EB.3EE856B3@folkwang-hochschule.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3CBEF1EB.3EE856B3@folkwang-hochschule.de> Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:18:51 +0200 Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > >=20 > <...>=20 > > I think we should have a section on the web site for the different > > applications which support different alsa versions. > >=20 >=20 > NOOOO. could we please please please annihilate every last little > trace of alsa 0.5.x from that page ? > if that's the stable release, people should be using kernel 1.2 on > an 8086 (as everyone knows, that's the stable release of the > pentium). >=20 > if it has to be, add a very small link to *OBSOLETE* releases and > apps that use them, but please not on the front page. i don't know > how often i have told newbies who had just freshly installed > "stable" to ditch it and start over with 0.9... >=20 > i don't see why jaroslav has sticked to this stable/unstable naming > scheme so long, but probably he had too many other things to do. > patrick, please fix this asap. >=20 > set_rant_mode(off); >=20 > really like the new site. good to see it maintained, and the three > main links for different interest groups are an excellent idea. >=20 > j=F6rn >=20 >=20 I second the motion, alsa 0.5.x not only is way more unstable than 0.9.x = in all the cards i've tried it with (and specially sblive) but more incom= patible. I think "obsolete" will fit perfect for it. Juan Linietsky