As I said - under what circumstances would that matter? Keep in mind that we're talking about the part of the kernel that allows for several processes to use the audio device at the same time, assuming lack of userland framework such as PA, not about proffessional audio recording. In other words, it's the infrastructure that allows a process go "ping" while some other plays music, not to master a record.
Posted Jul 6, 2011 22:57 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Your claim that nobody will ever use FreeBSD's audio infrastructure for professional audio recording may be correct. It is definitely incorrect with respect to Linux. People *do* use it for professional audio work, they *do* care about these things, and they *do* care about minimization of latency. Wishing that it were otherwise, and that everyone was like you and not an audio geek, will not make audio geeks go away.
Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org)
Posted Jul 7, 2011 7:06 UTC (Thu) by helge.bahmann (subscriber, #56804)
[Link]
> As I said - under what circumstances would that matter?
It matters because it means that you need at least two different audio APIs: "bare" OSS hardwired to talking directly to the kernel representation of the audio hardware, and something with a higher-level abstraction that allows to pass through a sophisticated user-space processing framework.
ALSA gives you an interface that behind your back can do both: talk to bare-metal hardware (if for some reason you want to), or have it transparently rerouted through PA. This means that ALSA provides a useful abstraction, while OSS does not at all. (Compare to e.g. OpenGL direct/indirect rendering, its hardware abstraction and what you gain over using libdrm directly).