On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Phil Burk wrote: > > From: dave willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > what? no "Linux: alsa?" > > useless. i'm not paying $60 for a crappy oss driver. > > Thanks for the feedback. We want to support both OSS and ALSA. We > implemented OSS first because it ships free with RedHat, and because ALSA > supports the OSS API as a subset of its own API. So the current PortAudio > should work with ALSA. Please let us know if that is not the case.
sorry for rash response. some oss-only programs i have just don't like oss-emu, but some do. i should test it before making these comments (i think i was sort of drunk and tired when i sent that post). > We would also very much like to support ALSA API directly because the OSS > subset API may not be correctly supported, and there are API extensions in > ALSA that would make the PortAudio implementation cleaner. yes, indeed. > I know it is frustrating for users when free open-source projects are > "useless" because they aren't available for the users platform. So if you > know any programmers who are able to develop an ALSA implementation of > PortAudio, please let us know. We are always looking for volunteers. On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, douglas irving repetto wrote: > that's interesting, i didn't know that something i use every day could > be "useless." perhaps rather than dismissing the hard work of a large > group of people, you could contribute to the effort to make the project > less "useless." see above for my apology. it seemed useless to me at the time, but very attractive if it did (does?) work with alsa (oss-emu?). perhaps since i'm now finally learning c i could contribute to this project. -dave
