4 ms·
It's more than 20 years later and still I don't understand these complaints. ALSA was designed to have a broader API than OSS, and it has supported OSS emulatio
by cycloptic 6y ago
It's more than 20 years later and still I don't understand these complaints. ALSA was designed to have a broader API than OSS, and it has supported OSS emulation for quite some time. What else could have been done when OSS went non-free?
- trasz 6y agoSame what FreeBSD has done: keep developing Open Source OSS. One implementation going non-free doesn't affect other implementations of the same API.
- cycloptic 6y agoDidn't they do that by developing ALSA OSS emulation? That is effectively another implementation of the same API.
- trasz 6y agoLibalsa is there in FreeBSD ports, but it's only for backward compatibility with Linux, and it's only userspace parts. The kernel implements OSS API.
- cycloptic 6y agoI mean Linux, it does the same but reversed: the kernel implements the ALSA API, and libaoss is provided for backwards compatibility in userspace with OSS. What else should they have done? The ALSA API is not the same as OSS and has a different set of features.
- trasz 6y agoFeature set doesn’t really depend on the API, FreeBSD implements all that functionality despite using OSS.
- jpetso 6y agoIt sounds like Linux and BSD both have an implementation for both APIs, only implemented in different ways? If so, I don't much see where the problem is with this solution.
- trasz 6y agoThey don’t. And the problem is that replacing a popular API with a proprietary one, like ALSA, creates a lot of work for everyone, for no reason other than NIH.