Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Peter Dolding]

> Peter Dolding wrote:
>> This would kinda make logical sence.
>>
>> Alsa-lib plugin system in theory should be able to take any kind sound
>> output under it.   Simplify development of all applications on top of
>> it.  If alsa was cross platform why would you use something else as a
>> middle body wrapper when you port.
>>
>> Windows and Mac support could be done as plugins.
>>
>> Or is there something that is in the alsa-lib that is a problem?
>>
>> Its all about reducing distance between application and hardware and
>> reduce amount of coding.
>
> I'd rather see pulseaudio go fully cross platform. It's got some older
> windows ports but if pulse were to get a push in the right direction for
> windows and OSX then this lets alsa get on with the job of interfacing
> with the audio on linux (that's what the L stands for after all), and
> let higher level applications work with a more appropriate system with
> more appropriate interfaces for practical use.

Ok sorry to say the idea of let sound server do it is the same as
saying we will put up for every with xlib being single threaded and
have the toolkits above it deal with it.  Instead of taking on the
problem. xcb is taking on the problem in the X11 stack of libs.
Except its many times worse.

Pulseaudio and all other Sound Servers since its a extra service adds
a extra point of complete sound failure to the Linux sound stack or
what ever stack they happen to be operating on top of.   It more of a
hack around the limitations of the alsa framework.  ALSA was really
designed to avoid the need of such extras.  The existence of
Pulseaudio is really sign of failure.  Reason Sound Servers existed at
first due to the failures of OSS to provide a multi application sound
support.  ALSA was really designed to do away for the need of sound
servers completely.  Now alsa is failing to provide per application
sound control and a sound server is back for another pass.

Now why are not alsa interfaces practical to use.   It is ment to be
"Advanced Linux Sound Architecture"  The complete Architecture.   Not
something you have to tack bits onto because its not functional or
hard to use.  Have we got to the point like xlib where the complete
alsa-lib has to be reworked for usability.

Now if you want to keep on thinking along that line has ALSA got to
the point it should be dumped like OSS has been dumped because of its
limitations?

alsa-lib to freebsd or somewhere with oss most likely could be done
really quickly since we already have a oss output option.

Its also like saying the Linux Standard Base is only used by Linux.
Its not its also used by a few non Linux's.   Driver section of ALSA
most likely will always be Linux only.   But the wrapper layer that
hides the hardware from the software really does not have to stay
Linux only.  Alsa is going up to be part of the Linux Standard Base
its about time we all start looking at how it can be made most useful.
 Provide all the features it should and work for stability.

Has anyone one attempted it or not.  I guess not.

Peter Dolding

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Colin Guthrie]

Peter Dolding wrote:
> Pulseaudio and all other Sound Servers since its a extra service adds
> a extra point of complete sound failure to the Linux sound stack or
> what ever stack they happen to be operating on top of.   It more of a
> hack around the limitations of the alsa framework.  ALSA was really
> designed to avoid the need of such extras.  The existence of
> Pulseaudio is really sign of failure.  Reason Sound Servers existed at
> first due to the failures of OSS to provide a multi application sound
> support.  ALSA was really designed to do away for the need of sound
> servers completely.  Now alsa is failing to provide per application
> sound control and a sound server is back for another pass.

I really don't see why the existence of sound servers is a failure of 
ALSA. ALSA does it's job very well by providing the necessary hardware 
drivers and an interface to them. The kind of things needed by a modern 
desktop sound system, however, goes way beyond the 1:1 hardware interface.

At the most basic level, sound servers can be reduced to just software 
mixers. The name "sound server" has a very bad reputation that (these 
days) is not deserved. To say that pulseaudio's existence is a failure 
of ALSA is doing ALSA a massive disservice. Sure, the software mixing 
can be done by Alsa's DMIX but DMIX is just a "sound server" anyway, so 
what specifically makes DMIX better or worse than PA in this regard? 
Because DMIX is started automatically? Because it's in kernel space? 
None of these arguments hold up when you get involved at the level of a 
distribution who packages things together correctly.


Pulseaudio is just a name and the kind of things it does are very much 
different to the core goals of ALSA (with the exception of the obvious 
overlap between DMIX and PA). The two fit very well together IMO.

If it makes you feel any better, just call pulseaudio "ALSA Desktop 
Services". Like I say it's only a name!


> Now if you want to keep on thinking along that line has ALSA got to
> the point it should be dumped like OSS has been dumped because of its
> limitations?

Of course ALSA should not be dumped! ALSA does it's job very well, and 
PA does it's very well too. I really don't see how you got to that 
statement from what I said. PA doesn't try and reimplement ALSA, it just 
implements the higher level audio stack.

> alsa-lib to freebsd or somewhere with oss most likely could be done
> really quickly since we already have a oss output option.
> 
> Its also like saying the Linux Standard Base is only used by Linux.
> Its not its also used by a few non Linux's.   Driver section of ALSA
> most likely will always be Linux only.   But the wrapper layer that
> hides the hardware from the software really does not have to stay
> Linux only.  Alsa is going up to be part of the Linux Standard Base
> its about time we all start looking at how it can be made most useful.
>  Provide all the features it should and work for stability.

I've not programmed much with alsa lib but I do know it's not all that 
simple. That's there are several other layers on top that exist. There 
API is complex and powerful but it also open to a lot of abuse. There 
are many ALSA client apps out there that are poorly written. That's 
simply because the API is complex and it is easy to make mistakes that 
do not surface with one setup but do on another. Making apps work nicely 
with DMIX was a pain and as soon as you remove the hardware aspect of 
the underlying system (e.g. to replace it with a plugin like bluez or 
PA) lots of interesting issues come to the fore.


IMO Pulseaudio is the future of the high level audio stack on linux and 
alsa is and will remain to be the future of the driver/low level part of 
that stack. The callback architecture is more suited to modern practices 
which is also adopted in CoreAudio and even on Windows these days. Over 
(a very long period of) time I think we'll see less and less direct 
impelmentations on top of alsa-lib and more on top of PA. That's my 
prediction anyway (and I'm talking about general purpose desktop stuff 
here; specialist sound stuff like Jack will probably still interface 
directly with ALSA).

While porting alsa-lib to other platforms is fine, I don't think it's 
the ideal future scenario.

And to be even clearer than I have been (if possible) I'm not 
badmouthing or insulting ALSA in any way here. I need it and use it and 
rely on it and I don't see that changing!

Just my thoughts.

Col.

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Rene Herman]

On 25-07-08 14:49, Colin Guthrie wrote:

> of ALSA is doing ALSA a massive disservice. Sure, the software mixing
> can be done by Alsa's DMIX but DMIX is just a "sound server" anyway,
> so what specifically makes DMIX better or worse than PA in this
> regard? Because DMIX is started automatically? Because it's in kernel
> space?

Just a quick aside -- DMIX isn't in fact in kernel-space.

Rene.

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Aaron J. Grier]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 08:51:13PM +1000, Peter Dolding wrote:
> Now why are not alsa interfaces practical to use.   It is ment to be
> "Advanced Linux Sound Architecture"  The complete Architecture.   Not
> something you have to tack bits onto because its not functional or
> hard to use.  Have we got to the point like xlib where the complete
> alsa-lib has to be reworked for usability.

alsa-lib's weakness from my perspective is the sheer breadth and extent
of its API.  the simplest polled output case for PCM requires a
significant amount of code.  there are a dozen snd_pcm_*() functions
before snd_pcm_writei() can be called.  I can't just open() a device,
ioctl() a struct or two to set sampling and buffer parameters, and start
write()ing data.  

ALSA appears to trade large data structures for large numbers of
function calls.  I assume this is intended to give finer granularity of
error reporting, but it makes programming ALSA very involved, perhaps
unnecessarily.

the recent step of deprecating (and subsequently removing) function
calls to slim down the API is a step in the right direction.

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agrier@poofygoof.com

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Peter Dolding]

> Peter Dolding wrote:
>> Pulseaudio and all other Sound Servers since its a extra service adds
>> a extra point of complete sound failure to the Linux sound stack or
>> what ever stack they happen to be operating on top of.   It more of a
>> hack around the limitations of the alsa framework.  ALSA was really
>> designed to avoid the need of such extras.  The existence of
>> Pulseaudio is really sign of failure.  Reason Sound Servers existed at
>> first due to the failures of OSS to provide a multi application sound
>> support.  ALSA was really designed to do away for the need of sound
>> servers completely.  Now alsa is failing to provide per application
>> sound control and a sound server is back for another pass.
>
> I really don't see why the existence of sound servers is a failure of
> ALSA. ALSA does it's job very well by providing the necessary hardware
> drivers and an interface to them. The kind of things needed by a modern
> desktop sound system, however, goes way beyond the 1:1 hardware interface.
>
> At the most basic level, sound servers can be reduced to just software
> mixers. The name "sound server" has a very bad reputation that (these
> days) is not deserved. To say that pulseaudio's existence is a failure
> of ALSA is doing ALSA a massive disservice. Sure, the software mixing
> can be done by Alsa's DMIX but DMIX is just a "sound server" anyway, so
> what specifically makes DMIX better or worse than PA in this regard?
> Because DMIX is started automatically? Because it's in kernel space?
> None of these arguments hold up when you get involved at the level of a
> distribution who packages things together correctly.
>
> Pulseaudio is just a name and the kind of things it does are very much
> different to the core goals of ALSA (with the exception of the obvious
> overlap between DMIX and PA). The two fit very well together IMO.

Same line OSS used just with a few words changed  Pulseaudio with ESD
and ALSA with OSS.  You are repeating history and don't even know it.
>
> If it makes you feel any better, just call pulseaudio "ALSA Desktop
> Services". Like I say it's only a name!
>
Its a failure renaming failure does not change it.   Over time you get
more and more competing sound servers.   How long before people of PA
look at ALSA and go why in hell are we using that nasty thing and just
go straight around alsa-lib and straight to alsa drivers so we don't
have the performance bottle neck.   This is exactly what PA is trying
to do now you will talk straight to us so you must run PA.  One
everything is talking to PA they can go direct to hardware.   No
matter if it causes trouble or not.

DMIX is userspace and was alway designed that ALSA could be expanded
to take on any task.

The difference is 1 sound server.  Total 1.  No more does  OS need.
ALSA was designed to be Linux's Sound Server and all the other low
level sound parts.  As soon as you have more you have trouble.  PA is
a second sound server that just provides a second point for sound
failure.  Basically PA should not exist.   If alsa was interesting in
being just hardware only DMIX did not have to be created we could have
just linked to ESD and other sound servers of the time.

DMIX is a clear sign that ALSA is ment to be far more.   PA is a
intruder everything PA is ALSA should be as well.

PA is taking the wrong method to fixing the the MIX problem DMIX
should have been upgraded.
>
>> Now if you want to keep on thinking along that line has ALSA got to
>> the point it should be dumped like OSS has been dumped because of its
>> limitations?
>
> Of course ALSA should not be dumped! ALSA does it's job very well, and
> PA does it's very well too. I really don't see how you got to that
> statement from what I said. PA doesn't try and reimplement ALSA, it just
> implements the higher level audio stack.
>
>> alsa-lib to freebsd or somewhere with oss most likely could be done
>> really quickly since we already have a oss output option.
>>
>> Its also like saying the Linux Standard Base is only used by Linux.
>> Its not its also used by a few non Linux's.   Driver section of ALSA
>> most likely will always be Linux only.   But the wrapper layer that
>> hides the hardware from the software really does not have to stay
>> Linux only.  Alsa is going up to be part of the Linux Standard Base
>> its about time we all start looking at how it can be made most useful.
>>  Provide all the features it should and work for stability.
>
> I've not programmed much with alsa lib but I do know it's not all that
> simple. That's there are several other layers on top that exist. There
> API is complex and powerful but it also open to a lot of abuse. There
> are many ALSA client apps out there that are poorly written. That's
> simply because the API is complex and it is easy to make mistakes that
> do not surface with one setup but do on another. Making apps work nicely
> with DMIX was a pain and as soon as you remove the hardware aspect of
> the underlying system (e.g. to replace it with a plugin like bluez or
> PA) lots of interesting issues come to the fore.
>
So it is like xlib.  A wrapper lib that has got too complex for its
own good. xlib also caused strange failures when connected to
different brand X11 servers.  xcb was all about simplifying a very
complex process.

Sound servers are also a way of avoiding have to fix these issues.
Just like toolkits on X11 have been.

If PA or ESD or any of the other sound servers can provide a simple
usable API so should ALSA.  Difference in operational complexity is
100 percent a error in ALSA.

Of course more complex options can remain.  Existence of sound servers
is pointing to failures.

I have not got onto the nasty bit of 3d sound not being simple inside
alsa.   Creative wanted to go straight past ALSA with openal.
Somehow I think they should have been let destroy alsa completely if
people here are not prepared to pull head out sand.

Tidy direct hardware interface api is needed.   ALSA-LIB need to be
feature rich.  It need to go cross platform so developers of PA, liboa
and others get pulled in here.  Or this will just rot and rot until
the day comes that ALSA-LIB will have to be dumped because its no
longer anything more than a processing black hole.

One option if PA is so many time better.   Is to complete save a lot
of time and completely do way with ALSA-LIB and say to the PA guys
here write a new direct interface to the drivers.   Because that is
what will happen in time if this project does not step up.  The
question is how many years.

It is really a simple selection kill/let ALSA-LIB slowly die off or
step up be a architecture and take PA and other sound servers on head
on.  If alsa-lib is not going to step up we might as well save the
resources and focus them better.

Really we do want all the sound server/driver/basic wrapper developers
here.   So there are more developer to deal with ALSA glitches.

I think some people here have got way way too friendly with the
completion.  PA is not a save ALSA camp it is a long term kill bits of
ALSA camp.

Question is how far do they go before alsa starts protecting itself.

Going cross platform is part of the protection.   No reason to keep
the sound system of linux segmented any more.   ALSA was always ment
to kill of the segmentation.  Its currently failing nicely at that
task.


Peter Dolding

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Sean McNamara]

Peter,

Two assumptions you make are problematic:

1. You assume that one FOSS project can "kill" another. This is false.
For a project to continue existing, the only thing it needs is people
working on the code to maintain it so that it works in the
ever-changing environment around it (the compiler, the kernel, core
libraries, etc.)

To a lesser extent projects also need users to stay alive; but a
project like ALSA or PulseAudio has very little say in whether a
distribution wants to adopt them. Distributions have the choice of
what software they want to use; software projects do not get to tell
distributors what software to use.

Unlike the proprietary software market, Free Software projects are
unaffected by users making choices about their software. ALSA does not
make any money by people using or not using it. There is no concept of
"sales" or "losses".

2. You assume that by creating synergy and prominence of a single
piece of software, that no one will try to write a competing piece of
software. This is false. You absolutely cannot stop people from
releasing alternative choices that have merits which draw users to
them. There is no such thing as "de-fragmenting" the FOSS space. You
can't make it simpler; you can only make it more complex. The number
of FOSS projects of any given category grows infinitely with time,
regardless of how good existing solutions are. This is true at every
level of the software stack, but some categories have more
alternatives than others.

Sound traditionally happens to have a large amount of
actively-maintained, moderately-popular alternatives to the point of
being annoying, but there is no remedy that will make the others
irrelevant. As long as there is some moderately-popular application
being shipped with distributions that uses XYZ sound API / sound
server, XYZ will have a user base. This leads to the unfortunate fact
that, as far as I know, there does not currently exist _any_
arrangement of nested sound servers and APIs that will:

1. Work for _every_ existing sound-using application (i.e. nobody
crashes, few or no drop-outs, no assertions or incompatibilities or
limitations, etc.)
2. Permit concurrent access to the soundcard by multiple applications
at the same time
3. Allow all the features of every API to work at the same time

Satisfying all three of the conditions is in theory possible, and it
is the only *true* way to provide a desktop user experience for audio
on Linux that rivals the "100% of the time, it just works" situation
on Windows and Mac.

The solution is not to be anti-social and try to defeat or snuff out
other FOSS projects. API unification/uniformity is not even a
theoretical possibility, much less an actual one. The solution is to
make your solution _interoperable_. In this arena I would say that
currently PulseAudio is by its very nature more interoperable than
ALSA. But even with its built-in ESD protocol compatibility, its
ability to use JACK as a backend, padsp for OSS compat, and the pulse
plugin for ALSA, there are still a lot of applications that rely on
edge cases of the aforementioned APIs... this leads to these
interoperability layers being frequently incompatible with XYZ
untested application.

My main recommendation in this discussion is to stop looking for a
monolithic, single-API sound solution on Linux; you won't find one.
The main reason is because people are going to use whatever sound API
they damn well choose in their spiffy new application. Instead, I
recommend that you submit patches, as I have, to improve the
interoperability of one API to the next. If we had the proper amount
of interest and careful attention to interoperability components
(ALSA<->pulse plugin, padsp, and so on) then desktop users would have
to ask themselves this quite-different question when determining what
"primary" sound server to adopt:

"How many different sound APIs can I support at once using solution
XYZ? [Because supporting just one will only let me use, at most, 50%
of the applications out there.]"

-Sean

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Peter Dolding <oiaohm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Dolding wrote:
>>> Pulseaudio and all other Sound Servers since its a extra service adds
>>> a extra point of complete sound failure to the Linux sound stack or
>>> what ever stack they happen to be operating on top of.   It more of a
>>> hack around the limitations of the alsa framework.  ALSA was really
>>> designed to avoid the need of such extras.  The existence of
>>> Pulseaudio is really sign of failure.  Reason Sound Servers existed at
>>> first due to the failures of OSS to provide a multi application sound
>>> support.  ALSA was really designed to do away for the need of sound
>>> servers completely.  Now alsa is failing to provide per application
>>> sound control and a sound server is back for another pass.
>>
>> I really don't see why the existence of sound servers is a failure of
>> ALSA. ALSA does it's job very well by providing the necessary hardware
>> drivers and an interface to them. The kind of things needed by a modern
>> desktop sound system, however, goes way beyond the 1:1 hardware interface.
>>
>> At the most basic level, sound servers can be reduced to just software
>> mixers. The name "sound server" has a very bad reputation that (these
>> days) is not deserved. To say that pulseaudio's existence is a failure
>> of ALSA is doing ALSA a massive disservice. Sure, the software mixing
>> can be done by Alsa's DMIX but DMIX is just a "sound server" anyway, so
>> what specifically makes DMIX better or worse than PA in this regard?
>> Because DMIX is started automatically? Because it's in kernel space?
>> None of these arguments hold up when you get involved at the level of a
>> distribution who packages things together correctly.
>>
>> Pulseaudio is just a name and the kind of things it does are very much
>> different to the core goals of ALSA (with the exception of the obvious
>> overlap between DMIX and PA). The two fit very well together IMO.
>
> Same line OSS used just with a few words changed  Pulseaudio with ESD
> and ALSA with OSS.  You are repeating history and don't even know it.
>>
>> If it makes you feel any better, just call pulseaudio "ALSA Desktop
>> Services". Like I say it's only a name!
>>
> Its a failure renaming failure does not change it.   Over time you get
> more and more competing sound servers.   How long before people of PA
> look at ALSA and go why in hell are we using that nasty thing and just
> go straight around alsa-lib and straight to alsa drivers so we don't
> have the performance bottle neck.   This is exactly what PA is trying
> to do now you will talk straight to us so you must run PA.  One
> everything is talking to PA they can go direct to hardware.   No
> matter if it causes trouble or not.
>
> DMIX is userspace and was alway designed that ALSA could be expanded
> to take on any task.
>
> The difference is 1 sound server.  Total 1.  No more does  OS need.
> ALSA was designed to be Linux's Sound Server and all the other low
> level sound parts.  As soon as you have more you have trouble.  PA is
> a second sound server that just provides a second point for sound
> failure.  Basically PA should not exist.   If alsa was interesting in
> being just hardware only DMIX did not have to be created we could have
> just linked to ESD and other sound servers of the time.
>
> DMIX is a clear sign that ALSA is ment to be far more.   PA is a
> intruder everything PA is ALSA should be as well.
>
> PA is taking the wrong method to fixing the the MIX problem DMIX
> should have been upgraded.
>>
>>> Now if you want to keep on thinking along that line has ALSA got to
>>> the point it should be dumped like OSS has been dumped because of its
>>> limitations?
>>
>> Of course ALSA should not be dumped! ALSA does it's job very well, and
>> PA does it's very well too. I really don't see how you got to that
>> statement from what I said. PA doesn't try and reimplement ALSA, it just
>> implements the higher level audio stack.
>>
>>> alsa-lib to freebsd or somewhere with oss most likely could be done
>>> really quickly since we already have a oss output option.
>>>
>>> Its also like saying the Linux Standard Base is only used by Linux.
>>> Its not its also used by a few non Linux's.   Driver section of ALSA
>>> most likely will always be Linux only.   But the wrapper layer that
>>> hides the hardware from the software really does not have to stay
>>> Linux only.  Alsa is going up to be part of the Linux Standard Base
>>> its about time we all start looking at how it can be made most useful.
>>>  Provide all the features it should and work for stability.
>>
>> I've not programmed much with alsa lib but I do know it's not all that
>> simple. That's there are several other layers on top that exist. There
>> API is complex and powerful but it also open to a lot of abuse. There
>> are many ALSA client apps out there that are poorly written. That's
>> simply because the API is complex and it is easy to make mistakes that
>> do not surface with one setup but do on another. Making apps work nicely
>> with DMIX was a pain and as soon as you remove the hardware aspect of
>> the underlying system (e.g. to replace it with a plugin like bluez or
>> PA) lots of interesting issues come to the fore.
>>
> So it is like xlib.  A wrapper lib that has got too complex for its
> own good. xlib also caused strange failures when connected to
> different brand X11 servers.  xcb was all about simplifying a very
> complex process.
>
> Sound servers are also a way of avoiding have to fix these issues.
> Just like toolkits on X11 have been.
>
> If PA or ESD or any of the other sound servers can provide a simple
> usable API so should ALSA.  Difference in operational complexity is
> 100 percent a error in ALSA.
>
> Of course more complex options can remain.  Existence of sound servers
> is pointing to failures.
>
> I have not got onto the nasty bit of 3d sound not being simple inside
> alsa.   Creative wanted to go straight past ALSA with openal.
> Somehow I think they should have been let destroy alsa completely if
> people here are not prepared to pull head out sand.
>
> Tidy direct hardware interface api is needed.   ALSA-LIB need to be
> feature rich.  It need to go cross platform so developers of PA, liboa
> and others get pulled in here.  Or this will just rot and rot until
> the day comes that ALSA-LIB will have to be dumped because its no
> longer anything more than a processing black hole.
>
> One option if PA is so many time better.   Is to complete save a lot
> of time and completely do way with ALSA-LIB and say to the PA guys
> here write a new direct interface to the drivers.   Because that is
> what will happen in time if this project does not step up.  The
> question is how many years.
>
> It is really a simple selection kill/let ALSA-LIB slowly die off or
> step up be a architecture and take PA and other sound servers on head
> on.  If alsa-lib is not going to step up we might as well save the
> resources and focus them better.
>
> Really we do want all the sound server/driver/basic wrapper developers
> here.   So there are more developer to deal with ALSA glitches.
>
> I think some people here have got way way too friendly with the
> completion.  PA is not a save ALSA camp it is a long term kill bits of
> ALSA camp.
>
> Question is how far do they go before alsa starts protecting itself.
>
> Going cross platform is part of the protection.   No reason to keep
> the sound system of linux segmented any more.   ALSA was always ment
> to kill of the segmentation.  Its currently failing nicely at that
> task.
>
>
> Peter Dolding
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
>

alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Peter Dolding]

This would kinda make logical sence.

Alsa-lib plugin system in theory should be able to take any kind sound
output under it.   Simplify development of all applications on top of
it.  If alsa was cross platform why would you use something else as a
middle body wrapper when you port.

Windows and Mac support could be done as plugins.

Or is there something that is in the alsa-lib that is a problem?

Its all about reducing distance between application and hardware and
reduce amount of coding.

Peter Dolding

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Colin Guthrie]

Peter Dolding wrote:
> This would kinda make logical sence.
> 
> Alsa-lib plugin system in theory should be able to take any kind sound
> output under it.   Simplify development of all applications on top of
> it.  If alsa was cross platform why would you use something else as a
> middle body wrapper when you port.
> 
> Windows and Mac support could be done as plugins.
> 
> Or is there something that is in the alsa-lib that is a problem?
> 
> Its all about reducing distance between application and hardware and
> reduce amount of coding.

I'd rather see pulseaudio go fully cross platform. It's got some older 
windows ports but if pulse were to get a push in the right direction for 
windows and OSX then this lets alsa get on with the job of interfacing 
with the audio on linux (that's what the L stands for after all), and 
let higher level applications work with a more appropriate system with 
more appropriate interfaces for practical use.

Just a thought...

Col

Re: alsa-lib has anyone ever looked at taking it cross platform?

[Timur Tabi]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Peter Dolding <oiaohm@gmail.com> wrote:
> This would kinda make logical sence.
>
> Alsa-lib plugin system in theory should be able to take any kind sound
> output under it.   Simplify development of all applications on top of
> it.  If alsa was cross platform why would you use something else as a
> middle body wrapper when you port.

Uniaud is a port of the ALSA kernel modules to OS/2.  It wouldn't be
too hard to add alsa-lib to that port.

http://uniaud.netlabs.org/en/site/index.xml

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale