3 ms·
There’s very little reason to call something like this directly nowadays. Usually, applications should use something like xdg-open(1) or see(1) (as an alias to
by teddyh 3y ago
There’s very little reason to call something like this directly nowadays. Usually, applications should use something like xdg-open(1) or see(1) (as an alias to run-mailcap(1)) to open and play arbitrary files. For internal playing of sounds, I would suggest some multimedia framework.
- 2h 3y ago[flagged]
- mlyle 3y agoThe point he's making is that having something that just dumps an audio file to the sound output isn't usually what you want anymore. Now you expect to have audio controls and a UI, as compared to when I would cat smellsliketeenspirit.au > /dev/audio > this is a pretty ignorant comment. You're free to disagree, but don't do it this way.
- 2h 3y ago> just dumps an audio file to the sound output did you even read the linked page? thats not all this can do by a long shot.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 3y agosox has a lot of functionality besides playing an audio file. Like synthesizers to generate audio, filters and so on.
- hulitu 3y agoCommand line is a type of _UI_, sometimes better than other types of UX. And the audio controls are part of the command's arguments.
- scbrg 3y agoThis is a weird take. The command is obviously useful in the context it's useful in. To point out that it's less useful outside that context is not very meaningful. It's like saying ls is the wrong command, because "what you want is a full file manager, with thumbnails and drag and drop and whatnot". Well, if that's what you want, you're obviously in a different context than the one you're in when you're reading the man page of ls, no?
- teddyh 3y agoI draw your attention to the fact that the other command I mentioned, see(1), will actually in turn call play(1) (at least on my system). You probably want your programs to call see(1) and not play(1) directly, as this gives the user more control over the commands run. This is why I said that calling play(1) explicitly and directly from a program is probably the wrong thing to do.
- 2h 3y agoyou seem to be oblivious to the fact that "play" can do more than play audio.
- teddyh 3y agoThe sox(1) and rec(1) commands can do a lot more, yes. But we were talking about play(1), which exclusively does playback, with optional added effects. And for straight playback of audio data, your program probably should not call play(1) directly.
- 2h 3y ago> optional added effects Right. so why are you pretending that this feature doesn't exist, or is not consequential? playback alone is not the same thing as playback with effects. > for straight playback of audio data who said that is the use case here? the original link is just to the man page itself. YOU DECIDED, that the only use case is straight playback with nothing else. that might apply TO YOU, but others might be keen on utilizing the other features, hence why they were added in the first place.
- teddyh 3y agoOptional added effects are of minor consequence in a command mostly meant for audio playback (as evidenced by its name; “play”). I also did not completely deny the outlier use cases, which is why I wrote “very little reason” instead of “no reason”. You are being unnecessarily combative.