Daniel Caujolle-Bert wrote:
>
> The main fact is 4Front is a commercial society, they ship
> binary only drivers. I think there are many people working in this
> society, and some are probably working on the documentation.
This "society" consist of two people (AFAIK)...
- Jussi
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
> > So, i think there's a time to code THEN there a time
> > to build docs (the doxygen sections in code are oftenly updated).
> >
> > This is why i think there is a non-sense in this *advandage*
> > of OSS here.
>
> I don't agree. Good documenta
> So, i think there's a time to code THEN there a time
> to build docs (the doxygen sections in code are oftenly updated).
>
> This is why i think there is a non-sense in this *advandage*
> of OSS here.
I don't agree. Good documentation is essential and I see the lack
of it as a serious pr
Hi,
Kevin Conder wrote:
>
> > > > Kai Vehmanen wrote on Thu, 07 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800:
> > > >
> > > > Why is ALSA the better alternative?
> > > > Have I missed some important points?
> > >
> > > Kevin Conder wrote:
> > >
> > > OSS has one crucial advantage over ALSA: documentation!
>
> > > Kai Vehmanen wrote on Thu, 07 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800:
> > >
> > > Why is ALSA the better alternative?
> > > Have I missed some important points?
> >
> > Kevin Conder wrote:
> >
> > OSS has one crucial advantage over ALSA: documentation!
> > Perhaps one day ALSA will have something
ALSA has rather complete support of IEC958, compared to OSS. At least for
hardware that can handle it. I also believe ALSA had multi-open before OSS
did.
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
___
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
ALSA's midi routing/scheduling functionalities are unique.
Without this it would be impossible to use different midi
applications which also interact via midi, sync or share the
same hw interfaces.
For OSS i'm pretty sure you had to write a kernel part first
before you could start to code your m
Kai Vehmanen wrote on Thu, 07 Mar 2002 05:41:34 -0800:
> Why is ALSA the better alternative? That's a question I've been
> asked quite a few times recently. Below is a reply I just wrote
> to ecasound-list. I'd be very interested in hearing your comments
> on this issue. Have I missed some impo
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
>> Why is ALSA the better alternative?
> Is it really related to devel ?
Yes. One, if not the most, important advantage ALSA has over OSS is the
framework it provides for developers. But it's not clear to everyone
(judging from the questions I get
Kai Vehmanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [alsa-kernel/alsa-driver]
> - better driver architecture
> - more shared code between drivers for
> different soundcards
no need to reinvent the wheel in every driver
distro maintainers build monuments in honor of alsa team
Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> Why is ALSA the better alternative?
Is it really related to devel ?
--
Emmanuel
Elegance is not optional.
-- Richard O'Keefe
___
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/al
As a programmer, alsa is just much easier to use.
alsa provides a consistent api interface for all sound cards thanks to the
alsa-lib. (shared user space code)
So, if I write an app for my sound card, I can be pretty sure the app will
work on all other sound cards.
With OSS/Free, hardly any of th
12 matches
Mail list logo
