>> as i've said many times, i think its a mistake to write apps for ALSA >> unless they are generic audio engines. we need to be using APIs that >> represent the correct programming model and don't expose >> hardware-level details unless absolutely necessary. thats what > >You mean JACK? >Which kind of apps should use alsa then, just the MuSEs and Audacitys of the w >orld? for example, it makes sense for a soft-synth to use the alsa sequencer f >or its midi i/o, non?
First, I'm only talking about audio, for now at least. I'm trying not to be too JACK-focused, but yes, I suppose I mean something like JACK. How did you guess? :)) I don't think MusE or Audacity should be using ALSA *directly* (i obviously think that all Linux audio+midi apps should be using ALSA at some level, since its the best audio driver framework out there). As I said, only a generic audio engine application and/or framework should use ALSA. I know that this is unlikely to happen. We don't have Apple's position to impose any particular solution on anyone. I am sure people will carry on writing new software that uses the OSS API as well as the ALSA API, despite the problems created by the first and the excessive flexibility (and hence interconnect/sync problems) created by the second. Just using ALSA would be a good start for most programs, but IMHO, its about 10% of the distance we need to go. --p
