alsa seems to be fairly stable now so it's time to build it into infrastructure (note that that's what the original poster complained about). and build infrastructure around it (so that it's easier to configure/use etc.)
mature is not the same as stable/usable. as the original poster said - mature are projects like apache, X, linux kernel (not in all areas) etc. - projects that have been around in stable form for years. Alsa is in much earlier phase of development (but not a new kid on the block anymore either)
Good summary. Perhaps something to this effect should be prominently displayed on the ALSA homepage and throughout the documentation and wiki? I myself took the 1.0 designation as a symbol that the software was more or less complete and ready for primetime. That was one of the reasons I thought OSS was ready for the dust bin of history.
BTW, what are the prospects for making ALSA cross-platform? I know there are probably a lot of kernel dependent things involved. But id software (and other people too, no doubt) seem to use the OSS API for portability to *BSD.
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
