[MPlayer-dev-eng] [patch] prefer ALSA over OSS

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:15:54AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:17:24PM -0400, Compn wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:52:21 -0400, Rich Felker scribed:
> > 
> > >Not deluded at all. I don't expect them to magically ditch ALSA crap
> > >tomorrow, but I do know that preservation of features slated for
> > >removal is contingent on software using those features and a vocal
> > >community to stand behind them. The OSS API, being _THE_ portable
> > 
> > you guys should take this fight to the lkml.
> > 
> > :)
> 
> I doubt this would make sense:
> 
> It's unlikely that anyone is able to achieve anything regarding the 
> Linux kernel with fighting for OSS today.
> 
> There are right times for achieving something, and sometimes the right 
> times are in the past.

The right time to do the right thing is always now.

Moreover, your opinion as an ALSA supporter/pusher does not have much
validity in this conversation.

> The Linux kernel contains a standard sound system maintained by the 
> people who developed it. That's ALSA.

s/standard/nonstandard/

> Even if 4Front Technologies would suddenly decide to make their code 
> available under the GPL it would be too late - had they done it five 
> years ago, or if anyone else would have been an active maintainer for 
> the in-kernel OSS speaking loudly for OSS at that time, it could be that 
> ALSA would have never entered the kernel.
> 
> At the right time, the ALSA people were the ones who had code to offer, 
> and their code was accepted.

You're repeating the standard fallacy of ALSA: assuming the drivers
have anything to do with the API. They don't. The ALSA drivers are
perfectly usable with the OSS API, and the opposite is also true if
anyone cared to write an ALSA wrapper for OSS drivers (either the old
OSS-free ones or the nasty 4front binaryware).

The internal kernel API for sound drivers is the kernel developers'
business. They're free to choose whatever they like. But the external
API for applications must be one that's

1) most portable between unix platforms to minimize the bloat of
supporting multiple unices
2) most in harmony with the unix philosophy of device access
3) actually convenient and reasonable for developers to use

In all 3 areas, this is OSS. ALSA fails miserably in them all.

Rich