I've had a few misconceptions. Bluebee Blubeeme said, 4Front has a modern OSS implementation that is under a FreeBSD license.
The model of Sound on FreeBSD is, three layers: 1. The API, where programs use libraries (of respective sound architecture) to access the sound server. 2. The sound server: OSS, Sndio, Portaudio, JACK, ALSA, native, etc 3. FreeBSD's base is always OSS (OpenBSD's driver is sndio); sound servers connect to and use this. To use 4Front's OSS, FreeBSD's kernel will have to be recompiled without OSS, "snd" and "sound" references, and then that version of OSS installed. The part of OSS in name, that is a mess, is the API structure, and various implementations. In FreeBSD for instance, when a program uses an OSS API, I hear that developers, need to write so many patches, because different OSS frontends are not standardized. Most applications in ports use Sndio, because across BSD's the API to it is standard. Bluebee claims that 4Front's OSS is standard as well. As for API on programs/ports, just use the FreeBSD API that is available for it, OSS, Sndio, Portaudio, to connect to that sound server. As long as OSS covers the wide range of implementations of it, OSS In Name, without clarifiers, will carry this burden of being complex and having a nonstandard API, even when certain implementations don't or may not have this issue. Bluebee says, to my understanding, that 4Front's OSS doesn't have certain coding inefficiencies that certain sound architectures have. That is something for the developers to be informed about, and to consider in FreeBSD current. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
