On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:31:21 +0400 Loganaden Velvindron <logana...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it should be enabled in the installer similar to X11.
I don't like the idea of being asked about aucat in the installer. Every system administrator knows what sshd is so they can make an educated choice whether to start it or not. Can you say the same about aucat? Not every system administrator is also a DJ ;-) > aucat follows a sane design and more importantly, it could > help to improve buggy audio apps in ports. I noticed some weird > behaviour in mplayer when it comes to sound playback. > > If it causes too much audio app breakage, it can be disabled > prior to the next locking (no need for drama ;-)) > > Most openbsd users (like me) are lazy when it comes to testing patches. > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Alexandre Ratchov <a...@caoua.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:57:08PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 05:04:03PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > >> > yuck... sounds like linux to me. please don't go down that route of > >> > "enable everything, it can't hurt even if you don't use it" mentality. > >> > >> In a wide difference to linux, we try to avoid running buggy shit on the > >> system by default. > >> > >> I mean, if aucat was a large piece of junk like gnome's tracker, or > >> firefox, > >> I would understand objections to running it by default. > >> > >> Heck, even on servers. What's the actual footprint of an idle aucat ? > > > > afaics, besides the text and bss sections, there are 3 malloc()s of > > few bytes each.
