From owner-freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Fri Dec 15 12:30:17 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A640BE8012F for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:30:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c17:6c4b::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1E5740F2 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:30:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from hps2016.home.selasky.org (unknown [62.141.128.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0CDC260152; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:30:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: FreeBSD amd64 GENERIC kernel To: blubee blubeeme Cc: "freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org" References: <4c3ae20e-b6dd-d5db-0b93-2e1225daa658@selasky.org> From: Hans Petter Selasky Message-ID: <4eb0c57e-96fa-b75a-17f8-750154aa247a@selasky.org> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:27:28 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Multimedia discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:30:17 -0000 On 12/15/17 13:03, blubee blubeeme wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Hans Petter Selasky > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 12/15/17 11:34, blubee blubeeme wrote: >> >>> I feel like you're talking at something and not understanding my >>> objectives. >>> It's pretty simple: replace ALSA w/ upstreamed OSS. >>> >> >> I think you need to dig a bit more into the code itself to see what are >> the actual differences before I can say if your idea is good or not. I'm >> sorry, but I don't know opensound's code well enough to comment further on >> this. >> >> FreeBSD's implementation of OSS is missing a few features that hamstring >>> the development on FreeBSD. >>> >> >> What are those features exactly? Why can't they be implemented in >> FreeBSD's sound stack? >> >> Also, why would FreeBSD want to maintain it's own implementation of an open >>> source project? >>> >> I believe this has been discussed before and maybe there are more threads >> around which will answer your question. >> >> https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/163/ >> >> >>> What part of oss source: >>> https://sourceforge.net/p/opensound/git/ci/master/tree/ >>> is a binary blob? >>> >>> >> OK, I see the source code is available and that "audio/oss" is compiled >> from source. >> >> --HPS >> Hi, Can you answer my questions please? I feel like arguing with a bot. You claim: FreeBSD's implementation of OSS is missing a few features that hamstring the development on FreeBSD. I ask: What are those features exactly? Why can't they be implemented in FreeBSD's sound stack? --HPS > This is exactly what I am talking about. > FreeBSD OSS implementation is better, let's update it: > https://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley > That was created in 2008 and never touched a day after, why? > > Hey guys why don't you use oss in base, because our oss is better and we > make it match our kernel. > Okay great, can we update it, nope we don't have the manpower to do that. > > Did "RyanBeasley (last edited 2008-06-17 21:37:27 by localhost)" > ever come back and did any work other than create a wiki page? > > So, when will FreeBSD OSS fork get in sync with what's available online > right now? > What's with the circular logic here? >