Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:55:41 +0000 From: Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> To: Christos Margiolis <christos@freebsd.org> Cc: Matthew Grooms <mgrooms@shrew.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tragic State of FreeBSD Audio/Sound Message-ID: <al_4DXATypQygeQP@mutt-hbsd> In-Reply-To: <DK4LJJXHW21L.8WEP2JENAWZN@freebsd.org> References: <hkttyyfmuguexmliuhmg@ewtn> <sirudbjwrqwlhpzjpfqf@abqv> <20260720202746.45869b21@rimwks.local> <qwepsnprfvciwlmciezl@sxog> <bbcc6833-6af0-4dba-ba6a-155aad5fafd5@shrew.net> <DK4LJJXHW21L.8WEP2JENAWZN@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 01:18:54AM +0300, Christos Margiolis wrote:
> On Mon Jul 20, 2026 at 8:59 PM EEST, Matthew Grooms wrote:
> > On 7/20/26 12:38, vermaden wrote:
> >>>> I will not even start about PITA syntax of mixer(1) which went into
> >>>> this:
> >>>>
> >>>> % mixer -f ${DEV} vol.volume=+0.05
> >>> Just use gtk-mixer, avail in ports.
> >>>
> >>> In recent years, I haven't noticed any bugs
> >>> in the operation of the OSS.
> >> I do it by scripts anyway ... but I needed to rewrite all my scripts because of these changes ... and this change in syntax was bad from at least three perspectives:
> >>
> >> 1. It happened in 'point' release (like from .2 to .3) - not in new major release - breaking stuff for EVERYONE.
> >>
> >> 2. It happened without any reason - the tool could do the same with old syntax underneath - the new syntax does not introduce anything new - it just has different syntax.
> >>
> >> 3. As FreeBSD (at least up to some time ago) cherished the POLA principle WHY the old syntax could not been also kept and accepted?
> >>
> >> ... and yes - I also think that 'gtk-mixer' works well - so is 'dsbmixer' tool.
> >
> >
> > It offered something new to me: Confusion. In the past, I'd need to
> > fiddle with the mixer once a year and it was more or less obvious how it
> > worked. The last time, I just gave up.
> >
> > -Matthew
>
> I am genuinely curious. What is so confusing, and even worse, more
> obvious with old syntax than the new, to the point that you would give
> up?
Another anecdotal data point:
I, too, was impacted by the mixer(8) syntax change. I wrote my own
volume control scripts for my i3wm environment. I found the syntax
change to be somewhat confusing, whereas the old syntax seemed the
more straightforward of the two.
I was able to adjust my script, but it definitely was an impactful
change that actually caught me somewhat off-guard at the time. Minor
annoyance, but doable for me.
Thanks,
--
Shawn Webb
Cofounder / Security Engineer
HardenedBSD
Signal Username: shawn_webb.74
Tor-ified Signal: +1 (719) 756-1197 / activist_opsec.27
https://git.hardenedbsd.org/hardenedbsd/pubkeys/-/raw/master/Shawn_Webb/03A4CBEBB82EA5A67D9F3853FF2E67A277F8E1FA.pub.asc
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=V7+g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?al_4DXATypQygeQP>