<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_1937210</id>
	<title>State of Sound Development On Linux Not So Sorry After All</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245404640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"There have been past claims by Adobe and others that <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/05/30/1740205/Harsh-Words-From-Google-On-Linux-Development">development on Linux is a jungle</a>, particularly with <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2007/05/welcome\_to\_the\_jungle.html">regards to audio</a>. However today, the author of the popular '<a href="http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2007/05/sorry-state-of-sound-in-linux.html">The Sorry State of Sound in Linux</a>' has posted a <a href="http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-of-sound-in-linux-not-so-sorry.html">follow up</a> showing Adobe's claims to be FUD, as well as being a good update on where OSS and ALSA are holding today, and why PulseAudio isn't a good idea."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " There have been past claims by Adobe and others that development on Linux is a jungle , particularly with regards to audio .
However today , the author of the popular 'The Sorry State of Sound in Linux ' has posted a follow up showing Adobe 's claims to be FUD , as well as being a good update on where OSS and ALSA are holding today , and why PulseAudio is n't a good idea .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "There have been past claims by Adobe and others that development on Linux is a jungle, particularly with regards to audio.
However today, the author of the popular 'The Sorry State of Sound in Linux' has posted a follow up showing Adobe's claims to be FUD, as well as being a good update on where OSS and ALSA are holding today, and why PulseAudio isn't a good idea.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396785</id>
	<title>Finger on the pulse</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1245410880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually like the concept of PulseAudio. For the first time different applications that use the sound system can have their output levels adjusted individually, and most importantly for anyone new to Linux - easily. So there are no more surprises between a quiet application and a loud one.</p><p>As for stability, PulseAudio has been pretty rock solid, it hasn't crashed, but on boot VERY occasionally it decides to re-route all the outputs from the speakers to the USB headset, then you have to spend an age finding all the applications that play audio and set them back to the sound card.</p><p>The one major irritation is not a fault of PulseAudio as such, but with Skype. Being 32bit you have to have some 32bit parts of PulseAudio installed to hear the sounds of events like someone calling you. I un-installed the 32bit PulseAudio stuff, and can no longer hear these Skype events. So it's more of a critique on Skype totally ignoring Linux and 64bit (2 years and counting from the last Skype update for Linux).</p><p>So really, for me PulseAudio is very good, so long as the applications are compiled to use the 64bit sound system, and not just the 32bit like Skype is. For me, 32bit who cares!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually like the concept of PulseAudio .
For the first time different applications that use the sound system can have their output levels adjusted individually , and most importantly for anyone new to Linux - easily .
So there are no more surprises between a quiet application and a loud one.As for stability , PulseAudio has been pretty rock solid , it has n't crashed , but on boot VERY occasionally it decides to re-route all the outputs from the speakers to the USB headset , then you have to spend an age finding all the applications that play audio and set them back to the sound card.The one major irritation is not a fault of PulseAudio as such , but with Skype .
Being 32bit you have to have some 32bit parts of PulseAudio installed to hear the sounds of events like someone calling you .
I un-installed the 32bit PulseAudio stuff , and can no longer hear these Skype events .
So it 's more of a critique on Skype totally ignoring Linux and 64bit ( 2 years and counting from the last Skype update for Linux ) .So really , for me PulseAudio is very good , so long as the applications are compiled to use the 64bit sound system , and not just the 32bit like Skype is .
For me , 32bit who cares !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually like the concept of PulseAudio.
For the first time different applications that use the sound system can have their output levels adjusted individually, and most importantly for anyone new to Linux - easily.
So there are no more surprises between a quiet application and a loud one.As for stability, PulseAudio has been pretty rock solid, it hasn't crashed, but on boot VERY occasionally it decides to re-route all the outputs from the speakers to the USB headset, then you have to spend an age finding all the applications that play audio and set them back to the sound card.The one major irritation is not a fault of PulseAudio as such, but with Skype.
Being 32bit you have to have some 32bit parts of PulseAudio installed to hear the sounds of events like someone calling you.
I un-installed the 32bit PulseAudio stuff, and can no longer hear these Skype events.
So it's more of a critique on Skype totally ignoring Linux and 64bit (2 years and counting from the last Skype update for Linux).So really, for me PulseAudio is very good, so long as the applications are compiled to use the 64bit sound system, and not just the 32bit like Skype is.
For me, 32bit who cares!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28510941</id>
	<title>better article about state of Linux sound API's</title>
	<author>valentt</author>
	<datestamp>1246306980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A really insightful article regarding this topic is this:
<a href="http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html" title="0pointer.de" rel="nofollow">http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html</a> [0pointer.de]


And this is what Lennart Poettering (Linux audio guru) had to say about this article:

Nah, this is a complete and utter bullshit story. Slashdot just proved again that it is full of nonsense. Gah. Disgusting.

I don't think that this deserves a real response. I mean really, this smells more like a astroturfing from 4front, with all that OSS4 fanboyism.

This guys is just some lame fud blogger, not a technical guy who does any real the work, knows the technical details, works with the community and gets his stuff into the kernel or the distributions.

Would be good if Slashdot would verify that the folks whose story they post actually know what they are talking about. Because this dude obviously hasn't. But I guess Slashdot is not the New York Times and asking some actual respected Linux developers or even just linux-audio-devel before publishing such FUD stories would be asking for too much.

That famous Adobe jungle picture that was posted 2007 was grossly misleading already, and it still is. At least arts, nas, esd, oss were obsolete back then already, and mentioning almost unknown niche system such as Allegro or ClanLib doesn't make it any better.

What I have to say about the situation of Linux audio APIs I posted here:

<a href="http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html" title="0pointer.de" rel="nofollow">http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html</a> [0pointer.de]

If you care enough about slashdot, then try to get them to bring a story about that blog story, even if it is already frm last year. As a change from their usual stories this one, as I dare to say, would be written by someone who has at least a bit insight into what's really going on.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

Lennart</htmltext>
<tokenext>A really insightful article regarding this topic is this : http : //0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html [ 0pointer.de ] And this is what Lennart Poettering ( Linux audio guru ) had to say about this article : Nah , this is a complete and utter bullshit story .
Slashdot just proved again that it is full of nonsense .
Gah. Disgusting .
I do n't think that this deserves a real response .
I mean really , this smells more like a astroturfing from 4front , with all that OSS4 fanboyism .
This guys is just some lame fud blogger , not a technical guy who does any real the work , knows the technical details , works with the community and gets his stuff into the kernel or the distributions .
Would be good if Slashdot would verify that the folks whose story they post actually know what they are talking about .
Because this dude obviously has n't .
But I guess Slashdot is not the New York Times and asking some actual respected Linux developers or even just linux-audio-devel before publishing such FUD stories would be asking for too much .
That famous Adobe jungle picture that was posted 2007 was grossly misleading already , and it still is .
At least arts , nas , esd , oss were obsolete back then already , and mentioning almost unknown niche system such as Allegro or ClanLib does n't make it any better .
What I have to say about the situation of Linux audio APIs I posted here : http : //0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html [ 0pointer.de ] If you care enough about slashdot , then try to get them to bring a story about that blog story , even if it is already frm last year .
As a change from their usual stories this one , as I dare to say , would be written by someone who has at least a bit insight into what 's really going on .
; - ) Lennart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A really insightful article regarding this topic is this:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html [0pointer.de]


And this is what Lennart Poettering (Linux audio guru) had to say about this article:

Nah, this is a complete and utter bullshit story.
Slashdot just proved again that it is full of nonsense.
Gah. Disgusting.
I don't think that this deserves a real response.
I mean really, this smells more like a astroturfing from 4front, with all that OSS4 fanboyism.
This guys is just some lame fud blogger, not a technical guy who does any real the work, knows the technical details, works with the community and gets his stuff into the kernel or the distributions.
Would be good if Slashdot would verify that the folks whose story they post actually know what they are talking about.
Because this dude obviously hasn't.
But I guess Slashdot is not the New York Times and asking some actual respected Linux developers or even just linux-audio-devel before publishing such FUD stories would be asking for too much.
That famous Adobe jungle picture that was posted 2007 was grossly misleading already, and it still is.
At least arts, nas, esd, oss were obsolete back then already, and mentioning almost unknown niche system such as Allegro or ClanLib doesn't make it any better.
What I have to say about the situation of Linux audio APIs I posted here:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html [0pointer.de]

If you care enough about slashdot, then try to get them to bring a story about that blog story, even if it is already frm last year.
As a change from their usual stories this one, as I dare to say, would be written by someone who has at least a bit insight into what's really going on.
;-)

Lennart</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398145</id>
	<title>Audio on Linux != Good</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1245420540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't even read what they said.  All I know is as an IT guy with many users that use Linux.  It has issues.  Adobe Flash causing a shit load of them. (especially peered with Skype)</p><p>I myself don't have many issues, but then again I take extra special care on what hardware I purchase.</p><p>As "Reboot" is the first step in support for Windows.  In Linux I've found it's "alsa force-reload".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't even read what they said .
All I know is as an IT guy with many users that use Linux .
It has issues .
Adobe Flash causing a shit load of them .
( especially peered with Skype ) I myself do n't have many issues , but then again I take extra special care on what hardware I purchase.As " Reboot " is the first step in support for Windows .
In Linux I 've found it 's " alsa force-reload " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't even read what they said.
All I know is as an IT guy with many users that use Linux.
It has issues.
Adobe Flash causing a shit load of them.
(especially peered with Skype)I myself don't have many issues, but then again I take extra special care on what hardware I purchase.As "Reboot" is the first step in support for Windows.
In Linux I've found it's "alsa force-reload".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396955</id>
	<title>Define 'We'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean GNU nuts as part of 'we' who only care about spreading GNU licensed software and the extinction of all other open source licensed software packages?</p><p>Do you mean BSD type developers who just want to write high quality software for other people to use?</p><p>Do you mean people who want Linux to be an exact Windows clone with the same APIs?</p><p>Do you mean people who want Linux to be an exact OS X clone with the same APIs?</p><p>Do you mean people who still think Linux shouldn't be for the masses and silly stuff like sound is unimportant?</p><p>Do you mean people who just plain suck at computer engineering and coding?</p><p>Every single one of those groups considers themselves part of the Linux 'we' - and each and every one of them is furiously flaming the other groups in comments in this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean GNU nuts as part of 'we ' who only care about spreading GNU licensed software and the extinction of all other open source licensed software packages ? Do you mean BSD type developers who just want to write high quality software for other people to use ? Do you mean people who want Linux to be an exact Windows clone with the same APIs ? Do you mean people who want Linux to be an exact OS X clone with the same APIs ? Do you mean people who still think Linux should n't be for the masses and silly stuff like sound is unimportant ? Do you mean people who just plain suck at computer engineering and coding ? Every single one of those groups considers themselves part of the Linux 'we ' - and each and every one of them is furiously flaming the other groups in comments in this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean GNU nuts as part of 'we' who only care about spreading GNU licensed software and the extinction of all other open source licensed software packages?Do you mean BSD type developers who just want to write high quality software for other people to use?Do you mean people who want Linux to be an exact Windows clone with the same APIs?Do you mean people who want Linux to be an exact OS X clone with the same APIs?Do you mean people who still think Linux shouldn't be for the masses and silly stuff like sound is unimportant?Do you mean people who just plain suck at computer engineering and coding?Every single one of those groups considers themselves part of the Linux 'we' - and each and every one of them is furiously flaming the other groups in comments in this story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397395</id>
	<title>Re:Oss 4 in fedora?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1245414720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://terminal-variant.blogspot.com/2009/05/installing-open-sound-system-oss-in.html" title="blogspot.com">http://terminal-variant.blogspot.com/2009/05/installing-open-sound-system-oss-in.html</a> [blogspot.com]
<br>Just installed it as per the instructions on that link, rebooted and ran "mplayer -ao oss movie\_filename" to play with good audio.  To get vlc and other programs to work I may have to uninstall pulseaudio (annoying thing was making vlc stutter for 10 seconds at the start of every track anyway so I don't think I'll miss pulseaudio).</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //terminal-variant.blogspot.com/2009/05/installing-open-sound-system-oss-in.html [ blogspot.com ] Just installed it as per the instructions on that link , rebooted and ran " mplayer -ao oss movie \ _filename " to play with good audio .
To get vlc and other programs to work I may have to uninstall pulseaudio ( annoying thing was making vlc stutter for 10 seconds at the start of every track anyway so I do n't think I 'll miss pulseaudio ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://terminal-variant.blogspot.com/2009/05/installing-open-sound-system-oss-in.html [blogspot.com]
Just installed it as per the instructions on that link, rebooted and ran "mplayer -ao oss movie\_filename" to play with good audio.
To get vlc and other programs to work I may have to uninstall pulseaudio (annoying thing was making vlc stutter for 10 seconds at the start of every track anyway so I don't think I'll miss pulseaudio).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401017</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245505020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSS became commercial (non-Free) and so new versions couldn't be imported into the Linux or FreeBSD kernels.  It also lacked in-kernel software mixing, so if your sound card didn't support multiple channels you could only have one device playing sound at once.  At this point, the two camps went in different directions.</p><p>
The FreeBSD team kept adding features to the open source version of OSS.  They followed the 4Front APIs, and included support for mixing.  They maintained backwards compatibility with all of the existing software, and exposed newer features to new software via new ioctls.  FreeBSD now supports most of the OSS4 APIs with their own code.</p><p>
The Linux team decided that OSS was now evil and proprietary, so they deprecated the OSS3 APIs in favour of the new ALSA APIs.  ALSA fixed the problem of sound mixing but, unfortunately, did it in userspace.  I say unfortunately, because the OSS compatibility APIs in ALSA are implemented in the kernel.  This means that you can't have two 'legacy' (read: portable) OSS applications playing sound at the same time.  </p><p>
The moral of this story is that throwing away a working code base and starting again rarely produces better results than incremental improvements.  Oddly enough, in spite of this you still get a lot of people claiming that Linux is ready for the desktop, while FreeBSD isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS became commercial ( non-Free ) and so new versions could n't be imported into the Linux or FreeBSD kernels .
It also lacked in-kernel software mixing , so if your sound card did n't support multiple channels you could only have one device playing sound at once .
At this point , the two camps went in different directions .
The FreeBSD team kept adding features to the open source version of OSS .
They followed the 4Front APIs , and included support for mixing .
They maintained backwards compatibility with all of the existing software , and exposed newer features to new software via new ioctls .
FreeBSD now supports most of the OSS4 APIs with their own code .
The Linux team decided that OSS was now evil and proprietary , so they deprecated the OSS3 APIs in favour of the new ALSA APIs .
ALSA fixed the problem of sound mixing but , unfortunately , did it in userspace .
I say unfortunately , because the OSS compatibility APIs in ALSA are implemented in the kernel .
This means that you ca n't have two 'legacy ' ( read : portable ) OSS applications playing sound at the same time .
The moral of this story is that throwing away a working code base and starting again rarely produces better results than incremental improvements .
Oddly enough , in spite of this you still get a lot of people claiming that Linux is ready for the desktop , while FreeBSD is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS became commercial (non-Free) and so new versions couldn't be imported into the Linux or FreeBSD kernels.
It also lacked in-kernel software mixing, so if your sound card didn't support multiple channels you could only have one device playing sound at once.
At this point, the two camps went in different directions.
The FreeBSD team kept adding features to the open source version of OSS.
They followed the 4Front APIs, and included support for mixing.
They maintained backwards compatibility with all of the existing software, and exposed newer features to new software via new ioctls.
FreeBSD now supports most of the OSS4 APIs with their own code.
The Linux team decided that OSS was now evil and proprietary, so they deprecated the OSS3 APIs in favour of the new ALSA APIs.
ALSA fixed the problem of sound mixing but, unfortunately, did it in userspace.
I say unfortunately, because the OSS compatibility APIs in ALSA are implemented in the kernel.
This means that you can't have two 'legacy' (read: portable) OSS applications playing sound at the same time.
The moral of this story is that throwing away a working code base and starting again rarely produces better results than incremental improvements.
Oddly enough, in spite of this you still get a lot of people claiming that Linux is ready for the desktop, while FreeBSD isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396495</id>
	<title>PulseAudio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory pulseaudio is great. In practice, it sucks.

Nevermind, it sucks in theory too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory pulseaudio is great .
In practice , it sucks .
Nevermind , it sucks in theory too : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory pulseaudio is great.
In practice, it sucks.
Nevermind, it sucks in theory too :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401343</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245508740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And about the latency: Please enlighten us, how you actually measured them?</p></div><p>playing pirated ROMs on ZSNES I guess</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And about the latency : Please enlighten us , how you actually measured them ? playing pirated ROMs on ZSNES I guess</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And about the latency: Please enlighten us, how you actually measured them?playing pirated ROMs on ZSNES I guess
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397503</id>
	<title>Works for me!</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1245415680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>(in Vista)</htmltext>
<tokenext>( in Vista )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(in Vista)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585</id>
	<title>Pulse Audio: the best gift the Linux world gave M$</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pulse Audio is a bloody disaster. It breaks just about every audio application I have, and even when its not running, it creates over runs and under runs in other ALSA and SDL audio applications (like ZSNES). ALSA, and SDL audio was the perfect sound abstraction system. Pulse Audio screws EVERYTHING up. I have to makle my own patched RPMs to get rid of Pulse Audio hooks in applications. Its bad. Its really bad.</p><p>Audio applications should use ALSA but not lock the card. Games should use SDL. Everyone else should follow suit.</p><p>If an application is locking a card its the drivers fault. Fix the driver, fix the over runs, and ditch Pulse Audio!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pulse Audio is a bloody disaster .
It breaks just about every audio application I have , and even when its not running , it creates over runs and under runs in other ALSA and SDL audio applications ( like ZSNES ) .
ALSA , and SDL audio was the perfect sound abstraction system .
Pulse Audio screws EVERYTHING up .
I have to makle my own patched RPMs to get rid of Pulse Audio hooks in applications .
Its bad .
Its really bad.Audio applications should use ALSA but not lock the card .
Games should use SDL .
Everyone else should follow suit.If an application is locking a card its the drivers fault .
Fix the driver , fix the over runs , and ditch Pulse Audio !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pulse Audio is a bloody disaster.
It breaks just about every audio application I have, and even when its not running, it creates over runs and under runs in other ALSA and SDL audio applications (like ZSNES).
ALSA, and SDL audio was the perfect sound abstraction system.
Pulse Audio screws EVERYTHING up.
I have to makle my own patched RPMs to get rid of Pulse Audio hooks in applications.
Its bad.
Its really bad.Audio applications should use ALSA but not lock the card.
Games should use SDL.
Everyone else should follow suit.If an application is locking a card its the drivers fault.
Fix the driver, fix the over runs, and ditch Pulse Audio!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397361</id>
	<title>Re:ALSA was a mistake</title>
	<author>GlassHeart</author>
	<datestamp>1245414480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If instead the effort had been applied to fixing OSS, sound on Linux would now be further ahead than it is now.</p></div></blockquote><p>You hear this a lot in the open source circle. Many projects have close competition (Gecko/KHTML, KDE/Gnome, etc.) where this comment might apply. The problem is that "fixing the few issues that existed" is frequently not only very hard, but also very boring. Put another way, if it was fun and/or easy, the original developers would've already done it. IOW, this is probably crappy work that you have to pay people to do, and unfortunately free software doesn't usually pay, so volunteers gravitate towards the fun and easy (at least, perceived to be easy), which is often to start a new exciting project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If instead the effort had been applied to fixing OSS , sound on Linux would now be further ahead than it is now.You hear this a lot in the open source circle .
Many projects have close competition ( Gecko/KHTML , KDE/Gnome , etc .
) where this comment might apply .
The problem is that " fixing the few issues that existed " is frequently not only very hard , but also very boring .
Put another way , if it was fun and/or easy , the original developers would 've already done it .
IOW , this is probably crappy work that you have to pay people to do , and unfortunately free software does n't usually pay , so volunteers gravitate towards the fun and easy ( at least , perceived to be easy ) , which is often to start a new exciting project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If instead the effort had been applied to fixing OSS, sound on Linux would now be further ahead than it is now.You hear this a lot in the open source circle.
Many projects have close competition (Gecko/KHTML, KDE/Gnome, etc.
) where this comment might apply.
The problem is that "fixing the few issues that existed" is frequently not only very hard, but also very boring.
Put another way, if it was fun and/or easy, the original developers would've already done it.
IOW, this is probably crappy work that you have to pay people to do, and unfortunately free software doesn't usually pay, so volunteers gravitate towards the fun and easy (at least, perceived to be easy), which is often to start a new exciting project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396397</id>
	<title>Pulseaudio sucks</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1245408960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pulseaudio sucks so bad I can't use it with the player of MY choice to watch movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pulseaudio sucks so bad I ca n't use it with the player of MY choice to watch movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pulseaudio sucks so bad I can't use it with the player of MY choice to watch movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397375</id>
	<title>It is still a sorry state.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245414540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you Linux and BSD nerds are fucking around with PulseAudio, ALSA, OSS and shit like that, I'm actually listening to sound on Windows just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you Linux and BSD nerds are fucking around with PulseAudio , ALSA , OSS and shit like that , I 'm actually listening to sound on Windows just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you Linux and BSD nerds are fucking around with PulseAudio, ALSA, OSS and shit like that, I'm actually listening to sound on Windows just fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399167</id>
	<title>Why do esd, arTs, pulse, etc. even still exist?</title>
	<author>drew</author>
	<datestamp>1245431940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something that has been bothering me for a while now.  It's been a couple years since sound servers were in any way necessary.  The sole purpose of ESD was to work around the fact that only one application could open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp at a time.  It was a horrible, nasty hack that was unfortunately necessary at one point in our history.  Nobody really wanted it to be a long term solution, we just wanted something that would work until the people ho wrote the sound drivers got their sh*t together.</p><p>Yet here we are, years later, and not only have we never tried to phase out these horrid abominations, we keep adding new and more complicated ones.  I have no words for how absurd this is.  Why is it that we can't just fix the issues in the drivers where they belong rather than piling heap after steaming heap on top of them?  And even when they do actually fix the issues, nobody ever tries to dig us back out of the pile...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something that has been bothering me for a while now .
It 's been a couple years since sound servers were in any way necessary .
The sole purpose of ESD was to work around the fact that only one application could open /dev/dsp at a time .
It was a horrible , nasty hack that was unfortunately necessary at one point in our history .
Nobody really wanted it to be a long term solution , we just wanted something that would work until the people ho wrote the sound drivers got their sh * t together.Yet here we are , years later , and not only have we never tried to phase out these horrid abominations , we keep adding new and more complicated ones .
I have no words for how absurd this is .
Why is it that we ca n't just fix the issues in the drivers where they belong rather than piling heap after steaming heap on top of them ?
And even when they do actually fix the issues , nobody ever tries to dig us back out of the pile.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something that has been bothering me for a while now.
It's been a couple years since sound servers were in any way necessary.
The sole purpose of ESD was to work around the fact that only one application could open /dev/dsp at a time.
It was a horrible, nasty hack that was unfortunately necessary at one point in our history.
Nobody really wanted it to be a long term solution, we just wanted something that would work until the people ho wrote the sound drivers got their sh*t together.Yet here we are, years later, and not only have we never tried to phase out these horrid abominations, we keep adding new and more complicated ones.
I have no words for how absurd this is.
Why is it that we can't just fix the issues in the drivers where they belong rather than piling heap after steaming heap on top of them?
And even when they do actually fix the issues, nobody ever tries to dig us back out of the pile...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397329</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>pablomme</author>
	<datestamp>1245414180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?</p></div><p>To remove floating-point operations (like sound mixing) from the kernel, I believe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So again , what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old " obsolete " OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions ? To remove floating-point operations ( like sound mixing ) from the kernel , I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?To remove floating-point operations (like sound mixing) from the kernel, I believe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397479</id>
	<title>What about recording "Stereo Mix"?</title>
	<author>Looce</author>
	<datestamp>1245415440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even something as simple as recording from the output of the computer doesn't work. I've tried PulseAudio, ALSA and OSS, all with a very simple conclusion: dead silence. It hasn't worked in Ubuntu in the last 3 years; I can't speak for the previous versions.</p><p>Is this ever going to work? And if it's currently working, what am I doing wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even something as simple as recording from the output of the computer does n't work .
I 've tried PulseAudio , ALSA and OSS , all with a very simple conclusion : dead silence .
It has n't worked in Ubuntu in the last 3 years ; I ca n't speak for the previous versions.Is this ever going to work ?
And if it 's currently working , what am I doing wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even something as simple as recording from the output of the computer doesn't work.
I've tried PulseAudio, ALSA and OSS, all with a very simple conclusion: dead silence.
It hasn't worked in Ubuntu in the last 3 years; I can't speak for the previous versions.Is this ever going to work?
And if it's currently working, what am I doing wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400533</id>
	<title>And the situation on Windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245496320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you use Miles? Or DirectAutio? Or whatever the replacement from MS of DirectAudio (to fit in with DRM requirements) is? EAX? Or EAX2?</p><p>Incompatible standards.</p><p>And, though MS push the OS builtin, Miles seems to be very very popular, saying something for DirectAudio's worthiness...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you use Miles ?
Or DirectAutio ?
Or whatever the replacement from MS of DirectAudio ( to fit in with DRM requirements ) is ?
EAX ? Or EAX2 ? Incompatible standards.And , though MS push the OS builtin , Miles seems to be very very popular , saying something for DirectAudio 's worthiness.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you use Miles?
Or DirectAutio?
Or whatever the replacement from MS of DirectAudio (to fit in with DRM requirements) is?
EAX? Or EAX2?Incompatible standards.And, though MS push the OS builtin, Miles seems to be very very popular, saying something for DirectAudio's worthiness...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396469</id>
	<title>but that can't be! surely with a community of devs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has no reason for such a core feature to be so lacking, let alone for a feature to get *worse* in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has no reason for such a core feature to be so lacking , let alone for a feature to get * worse * in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has no reason for such a core feature to be so lacking, let alone for a feature to get *worse* in time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396387</id>
	<title>Article must be a hoax. Linux is a lot more free.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245408900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sound development on Linux has a lot more easy interface than an undocumented kernel and driver system.  End-users have had the greatest choice of sound systems as being either 4Front Open Sound System, Advanced Linux Sound Architecture, or perhaps a specific driver provided in-house from the vendor.  ALSA has given Linux-based operating systems a greater edge over of ther *nix flavors if not even just Microsoft's selection. Even the *BSD's, specifically freeBSD, have been aiming their binary compatibility towards Linux thus proving it is leading the development tree rooted in commercial Unix.</p><p>Give me the Blue Pill.  I don't want to hear anymore about SkyOS or MorphOS...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sound development on Linux has a lot more easy interface than an undocumented kernel and driver system .
End-users have had the greatest choice of sound systems as being either 4Front Open Sound System , Advanced Linux Sound Architecture , or perhaps a specific driver provided in-house from the vendor .
ALSA has given Linux-based operating systems a greater edge over of ther * nix flavors if not even just Microsoft 's selection .
Even the * BSD 's , specifically freeBSD , have been aiming their binary compatibility towards Linux thus proving it is leading the development tree rooted in commercial Unix.Give me the Blue Pill .
I do n't want to hear anymore about SkyOS or MorphOS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sound development on Linux has a lot more easy interface than an undocumented kernel and driver system.
End-users have had the greatest choice of sound systems as being either 4Front Open Sound System, Advanced Linux Sound Architecture, or perhaps a specific driver provided in-house from the vendor.
ALSA has given Linux-based operating systems a greater edge over of ther *nix flavors if not even just Microsoft's selection.
Even the *BSD's, specifically freeBSD, have been aiming their binary compatibility towards Linux thus proving it is leading the development tree rooted in commercial Unix.Give me the Blue Pill.
I don't want to hear anymore about SkyOS or MorphOS...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397423</id>
	<title>4Front wasn't code-friendly is why ALSA was made</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245414900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow so Mod's are issuing points to anyone who makes declarations without evidence?</p><p>Before you knock somthing, try using it for once.  Application programmers shouldn't mock ALSA as it is tied directly to the Linux platform for flexibility.  Let libSDL handle all the proprietary shit so you can play CATMEOW.wav whenever your application sucks a nut; you don't need to lock a sound adapter in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev directory anymore like you did before in 4Front OSS.  You can have more than one application use sound now thanks to ALSA, out of the box without ESD or YIFF and friends.  Ever try directing development of a code-base that was not in your control?  That's another reason why ALSA is here.  Typical explanations from me, just look at all the support ALSA brings and it is all modules; you don't need INSMOD every module because the tier determines how many accesspoints to play your widget-noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow so Mod 's are issuing points to anyone who makes declarations without evidence ? Before you knock somthing , try using it for once .
Application programmers should n't mock ALSA as it is tied directly to the Linux platform for flexibility .
Let libSDL handle all the proprietary shit so you can play CATMEOW.wav whenever your application sucks a nut ; you do n't need to lock a sound adapter in /dev directory anymore like you did before in 4Front OSS .
You can have more than one application use sound now thanks to ALSA , out of the box without ESD or YIFF and friends .
Ever try directing development of a code-base that was not in your control ?
That 's another reason why ALSA is here .
Typical explanations from me , just look at all the support ALSA brings and it is all modules ; you do n't need INSMOD every module because the tier determines how many accesspoints to play your widget-noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow so Mod's are issuing points to anyone who makes declarations without evidence?Before you knock somthing, try using it for once.
Application programmers shouldn't mock ALSA as it is tied directly to the Linux platform for flexibility.
Let libSDL handle all the proprietary shit so you can play CATMEOW.wav whenever your application sucks a nut; you don't need to lock a sound adapter in /dev directory anymore like you did before in 4Front OSS.
You can have more than one application use sound now thanks to ALSA, out of the box without ESD or YIFF and friends.
Ever try directing development of a code-base that was not in your control?
That's another reason why ALSA is here.
Typical explanations from me, just look at all the support ALSA brings and it is all modules; you don't need INSMOD every module because the tier determines how many accesspoints to play your widget-noise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396309</id>
	<title>Main blocker</title>
	<author>sgbett</author>
	<datestamp>1245408480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>modprobe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>modprobe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>modprobe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396819</id>
	<title>Let Me Speak For Slashdot And Open Source World</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yes, Linux audio sucks."</p><p>No it doesn't - it works for me. You're an idiot and/or a Microsoft astroturfer.</p><p>"If nothing else, we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks,"</p><p>Choice is good. More choice is better. Duh. Don't you read Slashdot?</p><p>"and none of them are definitively better than the others."</p><p>Wrong. Sound system A &gt; B and C. Sound system B &gt; A and C. and Sound system C &gt; A and B. A survey of the comments in this story will clearly back that up.</p><p>"For comparison, FreeBSD..."</p><p>Ok now you've done it. A GNU Strike Team is heading to your location right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , Linux audio sucks .
" No it does n't - it works for me .
You 're an idiot and/or a Microsoft astroturfer .
" If nothing else , we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks , " Choice is good .
More choice is better .
Duh. Do n't you read Slashdot ?
" and none of them are definitively better than the others. " Wrong .
Sound system A &gt; B and C. Sound system B &gt; A and C. and Sound system C &gt; A and B. A survey of the comments in this story will clearly back that up .
" For comparison , FreeBSD... " Ok now you 've done it .
A GNU Strike Team is heading to your location right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, Linux audio sucks.
"No it doesn't - it works for me.
You're an idiot and/or a Microsoft astroturfer.
"If nothing else, we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks,"Choice is good.
More choice is better.
Duh. Don't you read Slashdot?
"and none of them are definitively better than the others."Wrong.
Sound system A &gt; B and C. Sound system B &gt; A and C. and Sound system C &gt; A and B. A survey of the comments in this story will clearly back that up.
"For comparison, FreeBSD..."Ok now you've done it.
A GNU Strike Team is heading to your location right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396863</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?"</p><p>Linux deprecated OSS2, which everyone agrees sucks hard.  It was a no-brainer.</p><p>OSS3 is significantly better but it was only recently open sourced.  Frankly, if the OSS devs hadn't spent most of the last decade with their heads firmly wedged, audio on Linux would probably be in a much better state.  Ah well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So again , what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old " obsolete " OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions ?
" Linux deprecated OSS2 , which everyone agrees sucks hard .
It was a no-brainer.OSS3 is significantly better but it was only recently open sourced .
Frankly , if the OSS devs had n't spent most of the last decade with their heads firmly wedged , audio on Linux would probably be in a much better state .
Ah well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?
"Linux deprecated OSS2, which everyone agrees sucks hard.
It was a no-brainer.OSS3 is significantly better but it was only recently open sourced.
Frankly, if the OSS devs hadn't spent most of the last decade with their heads firmly wedged, audio on Linux would probably be in a much better state.
Ah well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607</id>
	<title>ALSA was a mistake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>ALSA was a big mistake, from the same mold as the Netscape "Let's throw everything away and start again!" that Jamie Zawinski complained about all those years ago. For some reason the ALSA developers decided that OSS sucked but rather than fix the few issues that existed, they threw it all away and created this huge <i>monster</i> called ALSA. There are some nice ideas in there, such as generic PCM buffer management, but there is no reason those features could not have been added to the existing OSS implementation. OSSv4 proves that it was possible. Instead Linux has plumped for a system that is too complex, poorly supported, poorly documented and disliked by developers. If instead the effort had been applied to fixing OSS, sound on Linux would now be further ahead than it is now. Now that OSSv4 is fully GPL I'd love to see it back in the mainline tree, at least to give users better choice, but sadly I suspect there are some major egos and political posturing that will stop that happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ALSA was a big mistake , from the same mold as the Netscape " Let 's throw everything away and start again !
" that Jamie Zawinski complained about all those years ago .
For some reason the ALSA developers decided that OSS sucked but rather than fix the few issues that existed , they threw it all away and created this huge monster called ALSA .
There are some nice ideas in there , such as generic PCM buffer management , but there is no reason those features could not have been added to the existing OSS implementation .
OSSv4 proves that it was possible .
Instead Linux has plumped for a system that is too complex , poorly supported , poorly documented and disliked by developers .
If instead the effort had been applied to fixing OSS , sound on Linux would now be further ahead than it is now .
Now that OSSv4 is fully GPL I 'd love to see it back in the mainline tree , at least to give users better choice , but sadly I suspect there are some major egos and political posturing that will stop that happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ALSA was a big mistake, from the same mold as the Netscape "Let's throw everything away and start again!
" that Jamie Zawinski complained about all those years ago.
For some reason the ALSA developers decided that OSS sucked but rather than fix the few issues that existed, they threw it all away and created this huge monster called ALSA.
There are some nice ideas in there, such as generic PCM buffer management, but there is no reason those features could not have been added to the existing OSS implementation.
OSSv4 proves that it was possible.
Instead Linux has plumped for a system that is too complex, poorly supported, poorly documented and disliked by developers.
If instead the effort had been applied to fixing OSS, sound on Linux would now be further ahead than it is now.
Now that OSSv4 is fully GPL I'd love to see it back in the mainline tree, at least to give users better choice, but sadly I suspect there are some major egos and political posturing that will stop that happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400721</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>F-3582</author>
	<datestamp>1245499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy is one of the authors of <a href="http://www.zsnes.com/" title="zsnes.com">ZSNES</a> [zsnes.com] and since it can use all those shiny wrappers he talked about, just playing a game and roughly measuring the time between a defined action on-screen and the corresponding sound event is probably already sufficient. Add some perception of crackling and stuff and youll get the list he was talking about.

By the way: This latency issue is very application-specific. For example, <a href="http://mednafen.sf.net/" title="sf.net">Mednafen</a> [sf.net] has much better latency with ALSA than with OSS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is one of the authors of ZSNES [ zsnes.com ] and since it can use all those shiny wrappers he talked about , just playing a game and roughly measuring the time between a defined action on-screen and the corresponding sound event is probably already sufficient .
Add some perception of crackling and stuff and youll get the list he was talking about .
By the way : This latency issue is very application-specific .
For example , Mednafen [ sf.net ] has much better latency with ALSA than with OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is one of the authors of ZSNES [zsnes.com] and since it can use all those shiny wrappers he talked about, just playing a game and roughly measuring the time between a defined action on-screen and the corresponding sound event is probably already sufficient.
Add some perception of crackling and stuff and youll get the list he was talking about.
By the way: This latency issue is very application-specific.
For example, Mednafen [sf.net] has much better latency with ALSA than with OSS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398865</id>
	<title>more fundamental than that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i remember being on irc in a linux channel in the mid/late 90s with some guy who worked at redhat.</p><p>he was emphatically angry, ranting about 'why would anyone want to play two sounds at once'? this was in a discussion about how you can have the system 'beep' to notify you of things while you are playing a game.</p><p>this is the type of person that has been controlling linux development.. i.e. people who just dont 'get it'. people who simply do not care what ordinary users want. and in fact, ordinary users do not really have a say in linux development, it has been taken over by big corporations, who are the major funders of the kernel hackers... stuffing it full of crap like massive parallelism and kernel integrated httpd (god that was dumb) instead of basic things like 'does audio work'.</p><p>and it has been over TEN YEARS since that 'conversation'. entire operating systems , nay, computer systems have been born, matured, and gone to pasture in equivalent time frames.</p><p>the problem is psychological and social and political, not just technical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i remember being on irc in a linux channel in the mid/late 90s with some guy who worked at redhat.he was emphatically angry , ranting about 'why would anyone want to play two sounds at once ' ?
this was in a discussion about how you can have the system 'beep ' to notify you of things while you are playing a game.this is the type of person that has been controlling linux development.. i.e. people who just dont 'get it' .
people who simply do not care what ordinary users want .
and in fact , ordinary users do not really have a say in linux development , it has been taken over by big corporations , who are the major funders of the kernel hackers... stuffing it full of crap like massive parallelism and kernel integrated httpd ( god that was dumb ) instead of basic things like 'does audio work'.and it has been over TEN YEARS since that 'conversation' .
entire operating systems , nay , computer systems have been born , matured , and gone to pasture in equivalent time frames.the problem is psychological and social and political , not just technical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i remember being on irc in a linux channel in the mid/late 90s with some guy who worked at redhat.he was emphatically angry, ranting about 'why would anyone want to play two sounds at once'?
this was in a discussion about how you can have the system 'beep' to notify you of things while you are playing a game.this is the type of person that has been controlling linux development.. i.e. people who just dont 'get it'.
people who simply do not care what ordinary users want.
and in fact, ordinary users do not really have a say in linux development, it has been taken over by big corporations, who are the major funders of the kernel hackers... stuffing it full of crap like massive parallelism and kernel integrated httpd (god that was dumb) instead of basic things like 'does audio work'.and it has been over TEN YEARS since that 'conversation'.
entire operating systems , nay, computer systems have been born, matured, and gone to pasture in equivalent time frames.the problem is psychological and social and political, not just technical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399759</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1245440760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux has one (1) API to perform that single task, and that API is ALSA.<br>
Linux dropped OSS *seven years ago* because OSS simultaneously sucked and became commercial.<br>
And nobody complained because, on the contrary of what you say, ALSA provides seamless compatibilty with OSS.<br>
So the statement "we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single task" is two times false.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has one ( 1 ) API to perform that single task , and that API is ALSA .
Linux dropped OSS * seven years ago * because OSS simultaneously sucked and became commercial .
And nobody complained because , on the contrary of what you say , ALSA provides seamless compatibilty with OSS .
So the statement " we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single task " is two times false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has one (1) API to perform that single task, and that API is ALSA.
Linux dropped OSS *seven years ago* because OSS simultaneously sucked and became commercial.
And nobody complained because, on the contrary of what you say, ALSA provides seamless compatibilty with OSS.
So the statement "we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single task" is two times false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397371</id>
	<title>Sound in linux=crap</title>
	<author>cuby</author>
	<datestamp>1245414540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't care what anyone might say about this, Every day I have problems with sound over s/pdif and HDMI.
<br>
<br>In EVERY update of ubuntu I had sound glitches. Since day one I hated pulseaudio... how cares about volume per application or sound servers across the network when you have to kill firebox in order to have sound in VLC?... yeah, that happens a lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't care what anyone might say about this , Every day I have problems with sound over s/pdif and HDMI .
In EVERY update of ubuntu I had sound glitches .
Since day one I hated pulseaudio... how cares about volume per application or sound servers across the network when you have to kill firebox in order to have sound in VLC ? .. .
yeah , that happens a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't care what anyone might say about this, Every day I have problems with sound over s/pdif and HDMI.
In EVERY update of ubuntu I had sound glitches.
Since day one I hated pulseaudio... how cares about volume per application or sound servers across the network when you have to kill firebox in order to have sound in VLC?...
yeah, that happens a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397539</id>
	<title>Open Source FAIL episode 24398724389732</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245416220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet ANOTHER example of how open source is an absolutely TERRIBLE software development model.</p><p>Open Office?  Not even close.<br>The GIMP?  Total and complete crap.<br>The Linux kernel?  Laughably inept.<br>KDE/GNOME?  The only people who use these systems are people who are too dumb or too cheap to use OS X.</p><p>Can anyone name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source counterpart?</p><p>Down mod me all you want but you know it is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet ANOTHER example of how open source is an absolutely TERRIBLE software development model.Open Office ?
Not even close.The GIMP ?
Total and complete crap.The Linux kernel ?
Laughably inept.KDE/GNOME ?
The only people who use these systems are people who are too dumb or too cheap to use OS X.Can anyone name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source counterpart ? Down mod me all you want but you know it is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet ANOTHER example of how open source is an absolutely TERRIBLE software development model.Open Office?
Not even close.The GIMP?
Total and complete crap.The Linux kernel?
Laughably inept.KDE/GNOME?
The only people who use these systems are people who are too dumb or too cheap to use OS X.Can anyone name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source counterpart?Down mod me all you want but you know it is true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398317</id>
	<title>Re:it's all relative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry you have to boot into your monochromatic machine's native operating system...After all, ALSA only tries to work with a bajillion different sound cards instead of just the one or two that OSX has to deal with natively. Even if you have a third party sound card, and I'll bet it's one of the better supported ones since you do audio work, the fact is that since a software company will make money off of you for ProTools you won't have to cobble together a sound driver yourself.  Let's see you program a sound driver for ALSA *OR* OSS and then I'll listen to you complain. I've worked with the ALSA source code myself and it works well enough for a VOLUNTEER EFFORT!!! Convince a major music software publisher to create a Linux version (and promote it, and at least attempt to sell it) and we'll get professional sound drivers written by the card manufacturers instead of the (often miraculous, since we don't always have specs) amateur ones we get for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry you have to boot into your monochromatic machine 's native operating system...After all , ALSA only tries to work with a bajillion different sound cards instead of just the one or two that OSX has to deal with natively .
Even if you have a third party sound card , and I 'll bet it 's one of the better supported ones since you do audio work , the fact is that since a software company will make money off of you for ProTools you wo n't have to cobble together a sound driver yourself .
Let 's see you program a sound driver for ALSA * OR * OSS and then I 'll listen to you complain .
I 've worked with the ALSA source code myself and it works well enough for a VOLUNTEER EFFORT ! ! !
Convince a major music software publisher to create a Linux version ( and promote it , and at least attempt to sell it ) and we 'll get professional sound drivers written by the card manufacturers instead of the ( often miraculous , since we do n't always have specs ) amateur ones we get for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry you have to boot into your monochromatic machine's native operating system...After all, ALSA only tries to work with a bajillion different sound cards instead of just the one or two that OSX has to deal with natively.
Even if you have a third party sound card, and I'll bet it's one of the better supported ones since you do audio work, the fact is that since a software company will make money off of you for ProTools you won't have to cobble together a sound driver yourself.
Let's see you program a sound driver for ALSA *OR* OSS and then I'll listen to you complain.
I've worked with the ALSA source code myself and it works well enough for a VOLUNTEER EFFORT!!!
Convince a major music software publisher to create a Linux version (and promote it, and at least attempt to sell it) and we'll get professional sound drivers written by the card manufacturers instead of the (often miraculous, since we don't always have specs) amateur ones we get for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402187</id>
	<title>Re:Pulse Audio: the best gift the Linux world gave</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1245515760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like PA. I had to set it up myself, since I use Debian, but since I got it working (not too hard),it has been great. It fixed the "Flash locking the sound card" issues I had been having, and everything else continued working fine, and I got sound mixing out of it. That said, from everything I have found out about OSSv4, I would like to see it replace alsa and most of PA, but it seems unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like PA. I had to set it up myself , since I use Debian , but since I got it working ( not too hard ) ,it has been great .
It fixed the " Flash locking the sound card " issues I had been having , and everything else continued working fine , and I got sound mixing out of it .
That said , from everything I have found out about OSSv4 , I would like to see it replace alsa and most of PA , but it seems unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like PA. I had to set it up myself, since I use Debian, but since I got it working (not too hard),it has been great.
It fixed the "Flash locking the sound card" issues I had been having, and everything else continued working fine, and I got sound mixing out of it.
That said, from everything I have found out about OSSv4, I would like to see it replace alsa and most of PA, but it seems unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402233</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1245516180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we are missing some reading comprehension here. He is saying pulse audio is not necessary nor is any other sound server. There are only two low level audio libraries in linux OSS and ALSA. These other sounds servers he says were created to deal with the lack of software mixing on OSS v3. Since there is not a lack of software mixing in OSS v4 or alsa there is no need to have a sound server and in fact it just adds latency and complexity. I think this is a bit eye opening as I never really understood the relationship between sound server and back end sound library. If this is true then the whole concept of a sound server is vestigial.</p><p>As far as which is better alsa or OSS v4 that sounds like a flame war ready to happen. I just want something straightforward that works well with low latencies can we get that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we are missing some reading comprehension here .
He is saying pulse audio is not necessary nor is any other sound server .
There are only two low level audio libraries in linux OSS and ALSA .
These other sounds servers he says were created to deal with the lack of software mixing on OSS v3 .
Since there is not a lack of software mixing in OSS v4 or alsa there is no need to have a sound server and in fact it just adds latency and complexity .
I think this is a bit eye opening as I never really understood the relationship between sound server and back end sound library .
If this is true then the whole concept of a sound server is vestigial.As far as which is better alsa or OSS v4 that sounds like a flame war ready to happen .
I just want something straightforward that works well with low latencies can we get that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we are missing some reading comprehension here.
He is saying pulse audio is not necessary nor is any other sound server.
There are only two low level audio libraries in linux OSS and ALSA.
These other sounds servers he says were created to deal with the lack of software mixing on OSS v3.
Since there is not a lack of software mixing in OSS v4 or alsa there is no need to have a sound server and in fact it just adds latency and complexity.
I think this is a bit eye opening as I never really understood the relationship between sound server and back end sound library.
If this is true then the whole concept of a sound server is vestigial.As far as which is better alsa or OSS v4 that sounds like a flame war ready to happen.
I just want something straightforward that works well with low latencies can we get that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396989</id>
	<title>Developer FAIL</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1245411780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait.  Claiming audio sucks on Linux is FUD because there's not one, not two, but <strong>three</strong> mutually incompatible and redundant APIs?  How the hell is this not a clusterfuck?</p><p>Oh I'm sure there's some reason why someone prefers one to the other, but seriously.  You're sending bits to a soundcard.  That's it.  Just make one API and be done with it.  Got a beef with the API?  Enhance it, don't just throw it away?</p><p>My god, audio was one of the reasons why I ditched Linux for a mac four years ago after running it as my  primary OS for ten years prior.  Frankly I got tired of having sound work in some applications, but not others.  I got tired of guessing which mixer would adjust the sound, which mixer wouldn't.  I got tired of seeing "No ALSA cards detected" in my startup, but someone how having `alsamixer` be the one mixer that worked most consistently.</p><p>This is a mess made by the developer community and developer community has so far failed to show that it is capable of solving it.  If only there were a Benevolent Dictator or something...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
Claiming audio sucks on Linux is FUD because there 's not one , not two , but three mutually incompatible and redundant APIs ?
How the hell is this not a clusterfuck ? Oh I 'm sure there 's some reason why someone prefers one to the other , but seriously .
You 're sending bits to a soundcard .
That 's it .
Just make one API and be done with it .
Got a beef with the API ?
Enhance it , do n't just throw it away ? My god , audio was one of the reasons why I ditched Linux for a mac four years ago after running it as my primary OS for ten years prior .
Frankly I got tired of having sound work in some applications , but not others .
I got tired of guessing which mixer would adjust the sound , which mixer would n't .
I got tired of seeing " No ALSA cards detected " in my startup , but someone how having ` alsamixer ` be the one mixer that worked most consistently.This is a mess made by the developer community and developer community has so far failed to show that it is capable of solving it .
If only there were a Benevolent Dictator or something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
Claiming audio sucks on Linux is FUD because there's not one, not two, but three mutually incompatible and redundant APIs?
How the hell is this not a clusterfuck?Oh I'm sure there's some reason why someone prefers one to the other, but seriously.
You're sending bits to a soundcard.
That's it.
Just make one API and be done with it.
Got a beef with the API?
Enhance it, don't just throw it away?My god, audio was one of the reasons why I ditched Linux for a mac four years ago after running it as my  primary OS for ten years prior.
Frankly I got tired of having sound work in some applications, but not others.
I got tired of guessing which mixer would adjust the sound, which mixer wouldn't.
I got tired of seeing "No ALSA cards detected" in my startup, but someone how having `alsamixer` be the one mixer that worked most consistently.This is a mess made by the developer community and developer community has so far failed to show that it is capable of solving it.
If only there were a Benevolent Dictator or something...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</id>
	<title>it's all relative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I no longer have to reboot into OS X to do real multimedia production work, then I'll agree that alsa has arrived. But this  self-congratulation party is way premature. Linux has nothing that can even begin to rival GarageBand, what to speak of Logic Pro or Pro Tools. I surely wish it were otherwise. In fact, I just got done spending hours fooling with the Pro Audio overlay for Gentoo, and couldn't even get Hydrogen to play nice with or without jackd.  Yes, my soundcard is listed as "supported".</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I no longer have to reboot into OS X to do real multimedia production work , then I 'll agree that alsa has arrived .
But this self-congratulation party is way premature .
Linux has nothing that can even begin to rival GarageBand , what to speak of Logic Pro or Pro Tools .
I surely wish it were otherwise .
In fact , I just got done spending hours fooling with the Pro Audio overlay for Gentoo , and could n't even get Hydrogen to play nice with or without jackd .
Yes , my soundcard is listed as " supported " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I no longer have to reboot into OS X to do real multimedia production work, then I'll agree that alsa has arrived.
But this  self-congratulation party is way premature.
Linux has nothing that can even begin to rival GarageBand, what to speak of Logic Pro or Pro Tools.
I surely wish it were otherwise.
In fact, I just got done spending hours fooling with the Pro Audio overlay for Gentoo, and couldn't even get Hydrogen to play nice with or without jackd.
Yes, my soundcard is listed as "supported".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28410929</id>
	<title>The bottom line</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1245601140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSS is tolerable, if you've got a card that it has drivers for.</p><p>ALSA, on the other hand is overcomplex, unstable crap...and unfortunately, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS is tolerable , if you 've got a card that it has drivers for.ALSA , on the other hand is overcomplex , unstable crap...and unfortunately , denial ai n't just a river in Egypt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS is tolerable, if you've got a card that it has drivers for.ALSA, on the other hand is overcomplex, unstable crap...and unfortunately, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397095</id>
	<title>Re:Pulse Audio: the best gift the Linux world gave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I've installed Ubuntu on other peoples the machines the first thing I do is remove PulseAudio.  It offers no benefit for the average user and is the source of many headaches.  Imagine being a new user and, when when discovering you can't do anything sound related, have to dive into a nasty tome of a HOWTO like this: <a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=789578" title="ubuntuforums.org">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=789578</a> [ubuntuforums.org].  You'd be looking for your Windows install disk before you even started scrolling down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 've installed Ubuntu on other peoples the machines the first thing I do is remove PulseAudio .
It offers no benefit for the average user and is the source of many headaches .
Imagine being a new user and , when when discovering you ca n't do anything sound related , have to dive into a nasty tome of a HOWTO like this : http : //ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php ? t = 789578 [ ubuntuforums.org ] .
You 'd be looking for your Windows install disk before you even started scrolling down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I've installed Ubuntu on other peoples the machines the first thing I do is remove PulseAudio.
It offers no benefit for the average user and is the source of many headaches.
Imagine being a new user and, when when discovering you can't do anything sound related, have to dive into a nasty tome of a HOWTO like this: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=789578 [ubuntuforums.org].
You'd be looking for your Windows install disk before you even started scrolling down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1245412500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Pulse Audio really sucks, then Linux Audio really is in a sorry state</p></div><p>No, because you do not have to use Pulseaudio.</p><p>He says pulse sucks for games . Although he is exaggerating the latencies, I can believe it.</p><p>It is so, so for video (you can get occasional lack of sync)</p><p>It does audio very nicely - mixing works fine, you can play different streams to different cards (yes, I do that), you can play streams on remote servers, you can combine all local sound cards into a single virtual device etc.</p><p>So the problem is not that we do not have good solutions. It is that we have different solutions with different strengths and it is not clear which should be the default. He thinks pulse should not be the default. I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Pulse Audio really sucks , then Linux Audio really is in a sorry stateNo , because you do not have to use Pulseaudio.He says pulse sucks for games .
Although he is exaggerating the latencies , I can believe it.It is so , so for video ( you can get occasional lack of sync ) It does audio very nicely - mixing works fine , you can play different streams to different cards ( yes , I do that ) , you can play streams on remote servers , you can combine all local sound cards into a single virtual device etc.So the problem is not that we do not have good solutions .
It is that we have different solutions with different strengths and it is not clear which should be the default .
He thinks pulse should not be the default .
I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Pulse Audio really sucks, then Linux Audio really is in a sorry stateNo, because you do not have to use Pulseaudio.He says pulse sucks for games .
Although he is exaggerating the latencies, I can believe it.It is so, so for video (you can get occasional lack of sync)It does audio very nicely - mixing works fine, you can play different streams to different cards (yes, I do that), you can play streams on remote servers, you can combine all local sound cards into a single virtual device etc.So the problem is not that we do not have good solutions.
It is that we have different solutions with different strengths and it is not clear which should be the default.
He thinks pulse should not be the default.
I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397313</id>
	<title>Re:ALSA was a mistake</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AGREED!!</p><p>OSS is quite easy to use and even has sane defaults. Open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp, set the sample rate and channels, start writing audio data. In many cases that's all that's needed. ALSA wants me to write war and peace just to get the thing initialized. It would help if the documentation wasn't written like old BASIC code where you have to jump all over the place just to get the whole story for a single function call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AGREED !
! OSS is quite easy to use and even has sane defaults .
Open /dev/dsp , set the sample rate and channels , start writing audio data .
In many cases that 's all that 's needed .
ALSA wants me to write war and peace just to get the thing initialized .
It would help if the documentation was n't written like old BASIC code where you have to jump all over the place just to get the whole story for a single function call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGREED!
!OSS is quite easy to use and even has sane defaults.
Open /dev/dsp, set the sample rate and channels, start writing audio data.
In many cases that's all that's needed.
ALSA wants me to write war and peace just to get the thing initialized.
It would help if the documentation wasn't written like old BASIC code where you have to jump all over the place just to get the whole story for a single function call.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397669</id>
	<title>Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245417120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>App -&gt; libao -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, low latency.<br>App -&gt; libao -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.<br>App -&gt; libao -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, low latency.<br>App -&gt; libao -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Bad sound, horrible latency.<br>App -&gt; SDL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, really low latency.<br>App -&gt; SDL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.<br>App -&gt; SDL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, low latency.<br>App -&gt; SDL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.<br>App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound, really low latency.<br>App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Adequate sound, bad latency.<br>App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Bad sound, bad latency.<br>App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Adequate sound, bad latency.<br>App -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound, really low latency.<br>App -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.<br>App -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound, low latency.<br>App -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, bad latency.</p></div><p>Do you by any chance buy Monster cables, and a wooden volume knob, because it "sounds better"?</p><p>I'm sorry, but without proper ABX tests, I do not believe a single word of this table.<br>And about the latency: Please enlighten us, how you actually measured them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>App - &gt; libao - &gt; OSS API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound , low latency.App - &gt; libao - &gt; OSS API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound , minor latency.App - &gt; libao - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound , low latency.App - &gt; libao - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Bad sound , horrible latency.App - &gt; SDL - &gt; OSS API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound , really low latency.App - &gt; SDL - &gt; OSS API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound , minor latency.App - &gt; SDL - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound , low latency.App - &gt; SDL - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound , minor latency.App - &gt; OpenAL - &gt; OSS API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound , really low latency.App - &gt; OpenAL - &gt; OSS API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Adequate sound , bad latency.App - &gt; OpenAL - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Bad sound , bad latency.App - &gt; OpenAL - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Adequate sound , bad latency.App - &gt; OSS API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound , really low latency.App - &gt; OSS API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound , minor latency.App - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound , low latency.App - &gt; ALSA API - &gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound , bad latency.Do you by any chance buy Monster cables , and a wooden volume knob , because it " sounds better " ? I 'm sorry , but without proper ABX tests , I do not believe a single word of this table.And about the latency : Please enlighten us , how you actually measured them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>App -&gt; libao -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, low latency.App -&gt; libao -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.App -&gt; libao -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, low latency.App -&gt; libao -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Bad sound, horrible latency.App -&gt; SDL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, really low latency.App -&gt; SDL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.App -&gt; SDL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Good sound, low latency.App -&gt; SDL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound, really low latency.App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Adequate sound, bad latency.App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Bad sound, bad latency.App -&gt; OpenAL -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Adequate sound, bad latency.App -&gt; OSS API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound, really low latency.App -&gt; OSS API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, minor latency.App -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; OSS Back-end - Great sound, low latency.App -&gt; ALSA API -&gt; ALSA Back-end - Good sound, bad latency.Do you by any chance buy Monster cables, and a wooden volume knob, because it "sounds better"?I'm sorry, but without proper ABX tests, I do not believe a single word of this table.And about the latency: Please enlighten us, how you actually measured them?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317</id>
	<title>By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>emj</author>
	<datestamp>1245408540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Pulse Audio really sucks, then Linux Audio really is in a sorry state .</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Pulse Audio really sucks , then Linux Audio really is in a sorry state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Pulse Audio really sucks, then Linux Audio really is in a sorry state .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396881</id>
	<title>kernel is fine, distros have problems</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1245411240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
TFA says that the way sound is implemented in the kernel is basically okay, but there are problems with how the kernel's facilities are used at higher levels by applications, and with the way the whole thing is integrated by distros. I think he's basically correct.
</p><p>
As an example of what's not broke about the kernel, and doesn't need to be fixed, it's a <i>good</i> thing that we still have support for OSS. OSS allows you to do sound I/O in exactly the way you would expect to do sound I/O based on the fundamental design principles of unix. You just do open(), ioctl(), read() or write() on devices like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp.  If you <i>couldn't</i> do that, it would be a failure to do the obvious, straightforward stuff to handle sound in the Unix Way.
</p><p>
As an example of what <i>is</i> broken at higher levels: I run Ubuntu Jaunty. Sound works fine every time I boot the computer, and I get the bongo sound as the login screen comes up. Then when I log in, master playback is muted, and the volume is down at 1/31. Also, the way the Gnome icon shows me that sound is muted (a tiny red box with a white x in it) is the same as the way the network icon would show me that I'd disconnected my ethernet cable or something; in other words, it makes it look like it's not just muted, but actually broken. <a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=7388298#post7388298" title="ubuntuforums.org">Here's</a> [ubuntuforums.org] my best attempt to characterize the bug:  <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/369822" title="launchpad.net">Here's</a> [launchpad.net] a bug on launchpad that may or may not be the same thing:
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says that the way sound is implemented in the kernel is basically okay , but there are problems with how the kernel 's facilities are used at higher levels by applications , and with the way the whole thing is integrated by distros .
I think he 's basically correct .
As an example of what 's not broke about the kernel , and does n't need to be fixed , it 's a good thing that we still have support for OSS .
OSS allows you to do sound I/O in exactly the way you would expect to do sound I/O based on the fundamental design principles of unix .
You just do open ( ) , ioctl ( ) , read ( ) or write ( ) on devices like /dev/dsp .
If you could n't do that , it would be a failure to do the obvious , straightforward stuff to handle sound in the Unix Way .
As an example of what is broken at higher levels : I run Ubuntu Jaunty .
Sound works fine every time I boot the computer , and I get the bongo sound as the login screen comes up .
Then when I log in , master playback is muted , and the volume is down at 1/31 .
Also , the way the Gnome icon shows me that sound is muted ( a tiny red box with a white x in it ) is the same as the way the network icon would show me that I 'd disconnected my ethernet cable or something ; in other words , it makes it look like it 's not just muted , but actually broken .
Here 's [ ubuntuforums.org ] my best attempt to characterize the bug : Here 's [ launchpad.net ] a bug on launchpad that may or may not be the same thing :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
TFA says that the way sound is implemented in the kernel is basically okay, but there are problems with how the kernel's facilities are used at higher levels by applications, and with the way the whole thing is integrated by distros.
I think he's basically correct.
As an example of what's not broke about the kernel, and doesn't need to be fixed, it's a good thing that we still have support for OSS.
OSS allows you to do sound I/O in exactly the way you would expect to do sound I/O based on the fundamental design principles of unix.
You just do open(), ioctl(), read() or write() on devices like /dev/dsp.
If you couldn't do that, it would be a failure to do the obvious, straightforward stuff to handle sound in the Unix Way.
As an example of what is broken at higher levels: I run Ubuntu Jaunty.
Sound works fine every time I boot the computer, and I get the bongo sound as the login screen comes up.
Then when I log in, master playback is muted, and the volume is down at 1/31.
Also, the way the Gnome icon shows me that sound is muted (a tiny red box with a white x in it) is the same as the way the network icon would show me that I'd disconnected my ethernet cable or something; in other words, it makes it look like it's not just muted, but actually broken.
Here's [ubuntuforums.org] my best attempt to characterize the bug:  Here's [launchpad.net] a bug on launchpad that may or may not be the same thing:
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>emj</author>
	<datestamp>1245409500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is really good read it, the conclusion is that Ubuntu should hire the OSS developer, and that debian needs better OSS support.  Another thing was Pulse Audio, which he say gives too much latency to be useable in games, not something I really care about but a 3 second delay is pretty extreme, I wonder if that is true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is really good read it , the conclusion is that Ubuntu should hire the OSS developer , and that debian needs better OSS support .
Another thing was Pulse Audio , which he say gives too much latency to be useable in games , not something I really care about but a 3 second delay is pretty extreme , I wonder if that is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is really good read it, the conclusion is that Ubuntu should hire the OSS developer, and that debian needs better OSS support.
Another thing was Pulse Audio, which he say gives too much latency to be useable in games, not something I really care about but a 3 second delay is pretty extreme, I wonder if that is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28403363</id>
	<title>Jokosher!</title>
	<author>emblemparade</author>
	<datestamp>1245526380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the world of free software has <a href="http://www.jokosher.org/" title="jokosher.org" rel="nofollow">Jokosher</a> [jokosher.org], which is inspired by GarageBand, and to me seems as easy to use. Still at an early stage, but I recommend taking note of it! Note that it's actually not JACK-based, which would make it so much easier for new users (the crowd usually drawn to GarageBand) to get into. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, Jokosher could be bundled into free operating system distributions, making them a nice alternative to Apple computers.
<br> <br>
I also recommend <a href="http://qtractor.sourceforge.net/qtractor-index.html" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">Qtractor</a> [sourceforge.net], which is more full-featured, but still not as intimidating as a full-blown DAW.
<br> <br>
But, I must say, being a heavy user, that I feel that Ardour has come a long way in usability in that last two years, and these days it's almost as easy to use as all the above. It's not hard to get productive with it fairly quickly. If you gotta learn a piece of software in order to produce music, I would recommend Ardour right now. It can start you small, and take you very high up in features. Ardour's huge problem right now (if you ask me) is it's outdated and paltry documentation.
<br> <br>
That said -- I fully agree with your statement that audio production on free software is not ready for self-congratulation. It's immensely powerful (there's nothing quite like JACK in the proprietary world, and there are some truly astounding LADSPA effects) but it's hardly rock solid, and definitely a mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the world of free software has Jokosher [ jokosher.org ] , which is inspired by GarageBand , and to me seems as easy to use .
Still at an early stage , but I recommend taking note of it !
Note that it 's actually not JACK-based , which would make it so much easier for new users ( the crowd usually drawn to GarageBand ) to get into .
Perhaps in the not-too-distant future , Jokosher could be bundled into free operating system distributions , making them a nice alternative to Apple computers .
I also recommend Qtractor [ sourceforge.net ] , which is more full-featured , but still not as intimidating as a full-blown DAW .
But , I must say , being a heavy user , that I feel that Ardour has come a long way in usability in that last two years , and these days it 's almost as easy to use as all the above .
It 's not hard to get productive with it fairly quickly .
If you got ta learn a piece of software in order to produce music , I would recommend Ardour right now .
It can start you small , and take you very high up in features .
Ardour 's huge problem right now ( if you ask me ) is it 's outdated and paltry documentation .
That said -- I fully agree with your statement that audio production on free software is not ready for self-congratulation .
It 's immensely powerful ( there 's nothing quite like JACK in the proprietary world , and there are some truly astounding LADSPA effects ) but it 's hardly rock solid , and definitely a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the world of free software has Jokosher [jokosher.org], which is inspired by GarageBand, and to me seems as easy to use.
Still at an early stage, but I recommend taking note of it!
Note that it's actually not JACK-based, which would make it so much easier for new users (the crowd usually drawn to GarageBand) to get into.
Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, Jokosher could be bundled into free operating system distributions, making them a nice alternative to Apple computers.
I also recommend Qtractor [sourceforge.net], which is more full-featured, but still not as intimidating as a full-blown DAW.
But, I must say, being a heavy user, that I feel that Ardour has come a long way in usability in that last two years, and these days it's almost as easy to use as all the above.
It's not hard to get productive with it fairly quickly.
If you gotta learn a piece of software in order to produce music, I would recommend Ardour right now.
It can start you small, and take you very high up in features.
Ardour's huge problem right now (if you ask me) is it's outdated and paltry documentation.
That said -- I fully agree with your statement that audio production on free software is not ready for self-congratulation.
It's immensely powerful (there's nothing quite like JACK in the proprietary world, and there are some truly astounding LADSPA effects) but it's hardly rock solid, and definitely a mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397079</id>
	<title>Re:The fundamental problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you describe is more-or-less what the Open Sound System is. Mostly less from what I seen, but like a lot of *nix based things, only a few minor tweaks should modernize it to what you describe.</p><p>Sadly, Linux switched over to ALSA, a complex beast that while improving audio on Linux initianlly (from the user's view, well mine as a user), it ended up doing little to improve the user-space situation: audio servers are still common and implement most of ALSA's most importent features (such as mixing for cheap hardware). In the end, ALSA is simply a complex mess thats a pain to configure to make it work better, and a pain to program for, and your programs will still only use ALSA thru a sound server, or at the very least a sound API wrapper library.</p><p>It would have been better to simply improve OSS, add the damn software mixing in it (that will fix most problems user's had with it), and leave the rest to userspace tools. Nice, clean, simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you describe is more-or-less what the Open Sound System is .
Mostly less from what I seen , but like a lot of * nix based things , only a few minor tweaks should modernize it to what you describe.Sadly , Linux switched over to ALSA , a complex beast that while improving audio on Linux initianlly ( from the user 's view , well mine as a user ) , it ended up doing little to improve the user-space situation : audio servers are still common and implement most of ALSA 's most importent features ( such as mixing for cheap hardware ) .
In the end , ALSA is simply a complex mess thats a pain to configure to make it work better , and a pain to program for , and your programs will still only use ALSA thru a sound server , or at the very least a sound API wrapper library.It would have been better to simply improve OSS , add the damn software mixing in it ( that will fix most problems user 's had with it ) , and leave the rest to userspace tools .
Nice , clean , simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you describe is more-or-less what the Open Sound System is.
Mostly less from what I seen, but like a lot of *nix based things, only a few minor tweaks should modernize it to what you describe.Sadly, Linux switched over to ALSA, a complex beast that while improving audio on Linux initianlly (from the user's view, well mine as a user), it ended up doing little to improve the user-space situation: audio servers are still common and implement most of ALSA's most importent features (such as mixing for cheap hardware).
In the end, ALSA is simply a complex mess thats a pain to configure to make it work better, and a pain to program for, and your programs will still only use ALSA thru a sound server, or at the very least a sound API wrapper library.It would have been better to simply improve OSS, add the damn software mixing in it (that will fix most problems user's had with it), and leave the rest to userspace tools.
Nice, clean, simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396629</id>
	<title>Audio sounds better on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The audio quality is disappointing on Linux. I don't know if it's the decoding or the playback, but audio sounds much better on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The audio quality is disappointing on Linux .
I do n't know if it 's the decoding or the playback , but audio sounds much better on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The audio quality is disappointing on Linux.
I don't know if it's the decoding or the playback, but audio sounds much better on Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398887</id>
	<title>Re:ALSA was a mistake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSS did suck. OSS4 is also a complete rewrite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS did suck .
OSS4 is also a complete rewrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS did suck.
OSS4 is also a complete rewrite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398213</id>
	<title>Problem with PulseAudio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I want to know is, what the hell is wrong with PulseAudio. I've been using PulseAudio since fedora began shipping with it. I have yet to have an issue with it. ALL my players of choice work with it (mplayer, rhythmbox, totem, vlc, elisa, exaile). ALL games I play don't care whether it is PulseAudio or not what's on the background. The OS doesn't care either, my sound card still works. Personally, I like the network transparency a-la Xorg and the fact that I can redirect audio streams at will.</p><p>So, here's the question: WHAT IS THE FSCKING PROBLEM?!?</p><p>If you have an issue with it, then you are doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I want to know is , what the hell is wrong with PulseAudio .
I 've been using PulseAudio since fedora began shipping with it .
I have yet to have an issue with it .
ALL my players of choice work with it ( mplayer , rhythmbox , totem , vlc , elisa , exaile ) .
ALL games I play do n't care whether it is PulseAudio or not what 's on the background .
The OS does n't care either , my sound card still works .
Personally , I like the network transparency a-la Xorg and the fact that I can redirect audio streams at will.So , here 's the question : WHAT IS THE FSCKING PROBLEM ? !
? If you have an issue with it , then you are doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I want to know is, what the hell is wrong with PulseAudio.
I've been using PulseAudio since fedora began shipping with it.
I have yet to have an issue with it.
ALL my players of choice work with it (mplayer, rhythmbox, totem, vlc, elisa, exaile).
ALL games I play don't care whether it is PulseAudio or not what's on the background.
The OS doesn't care either, my sound card still works.
Personally, I like the network transparency a-la Xorg and the fact that I can redirect audio streams at will.So, here's the question: WHAT IS THE FSCKING PROBLEM?!
?If you have an issue with it, then you are doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396915</id>
	<title>OSS4</title>
	<author>dburkland</author>
	<datestamp>1245411420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>needs to be integrated into the Linux core and ALSA/PulseAudio need to die kthx</htmltext>
<tokenext>needs to be integrated into the Linux core and ALSA/PulseAudio need to die kthx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>needs to be integrated into the Linux core and ALSA/PulseAudio need to die kthx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28405187</id>
	<title>Re:A sure road to success .....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that OpenAL was created to have access to sound in a simple and crossplatform manner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that OpenAL was created to have access to sound in a simple and crossplatform manner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that OpenAL was created to have access to sound in a simple and crossplatform manner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400279</id>
	<title>Re:What about recording "Stereo Mix"?</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1245492780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try this, it works out of the box for me with bare ALSA on a cheap AC'97.<br>
Start alsamixer, choose the "capture" tab (press TAB), enable "mix" and "capture" (use arrows then press SPACE). Quit alsamixer (press ESC).<br>
Then you can start recording using your favourite app - for example, you can run<br>
<tt>arecord -f S16\_LE -c 2 -V stereo output.wav</tt> <br>
and you get your sound card output on output.wav, with a neat text-based VU meter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
When you&rsquo;re finished recording, press CTRL-C to stop arecord.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this , it works out of the box for me with bare ALSA on a cheap AC'97 .
Start alsamixer , choose the " capture " tab ( press TAB ) , enable " mix " and " capture " ( use arrows then press SPACE ) .
Quit alsamixer ( press ESC ) .
Then you can start recording using your favourite app - for example , you can run arecord -f S16 \ _LE -c 2 -V stereo output.wav and you get your sound card output on output.wav , with a neat text-based VU meter ; ) .
When you    re finished recording , press CTRL-C to stop arecord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this, it works out of the box for me with bare ALSA on a cheap AC'97.
Start alsamixer, choose the "capture" tab (press TAB), enable "mix" and "capture" (use arrows then press SPACE).
Quit alsamixer (press ESC).
Then you can start recording using your favourite app - for example, you can run
arecord -f S16\_LE -c 2 -V stereo output.wav 
and you get your sound card output on output.wav, with a neat text-based VU meter ;) .
When you’re finished recording, press CTRL-C to stop arecord.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397523</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>fatalGlory</author>
	<datestamp>1245415860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any BSD/Linux devs who can shed light on why bsd does this and not linux?  It sounds like a perfect, treat-everything-as-a-file, "unixy" solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any BSD/Linux devs who can shed light on why bsd does this and not linux ?
It sounds like a perfect , treat-everything-as-a-file , " unixy " solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any BSD/Linux devs who can shed light on why bsd does this and not linux?
It sounds like a perfect, treat-everything-as-a-file, "unixy" solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397159</id>
	<title>Alsa to OSS</title>
	<author>AaronW</author>
	<datestamp>1245412860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the years I had a lot of prolbems with ALSA, the biggest being the lack of sound mixing with the sound card on my motherboard. To get around it, I went out and bought a different sound card that supported hardware mixing. I still had problems where ALSA would just break periodically and require restarting it. Then at one point it just plain broke and nothing would fix it.</p><p>I had enough and installed OSS. What a difference. Latency is better and it just works. There is no excuse to not providing consistent audio mixing. I should have switched to OSS in the beginning rather than buy an expensive sound card because ALSA couldn't do software mixing.</p><p>A sound API should provide sufficient abstraction so that basic operations do not depend on the underlying hardware. Mixing, sample rate conversion (when needed) and per-application volume settings fall under basic operation as far as I'm concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years I had a lot of prolbems with ALSA , the biggest being the lack of sound mixing with the sound card on my motherboard .
To get around it , I went out and bought a different sound card that supported hardware mixing .
I still had problems where ALSA would just break periodically and require restarting it .
Then at one point it just plain broke and nothing would fix it.I had enough and installed OSS .
What a difference .
Latency is better and it just works .
There is no excuse to not providing consistent audio mixing .
I should have switched to OSS in the beginning rather than buy an expensive sound card because ALSA could n't do software mixing.A sound API should provide sufficient abstraction so that basic operations do not depend on the underlying hardware .
Mixing , sample rate conversion ( when needed ) and per-application volume settings fall under basic operation as far as I 'm concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years I had a lot of prolbems with ALSA, the biggest being the lack of sound mixing with the sound card on my motherboard.
To get around it, I went out and bought a different sound card that supported hardware mixing.
I still had problems where ALSA would just break periodically and require restarting it.
Then at one point it just plain broke and nothing would fix it.I had enough and installed OSS.
What a difference.
Latency is better and it just works.
There is no excuse to not providing consistent audio mixing.
I should have switched to OSS in the beginning rather than buy an expensive sound card because ALSA couldn't do software mixing.A sound API should provide sufficient abstraction so that basic operations do not depend on the underlying hardware.
Mixing, sample rate conversion (when needed) and per-application volume settings fall under basic operation as far as I'm concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396851</id>
	<title>Oss 4 in fedora?</title>
	<author>TheSunborn</author>
	<datestamp>1245411120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does anyone know how to get oss working in Fedora 11?</p><p>I am currently stuck with alsa, and after removing pulse audio, anything is more or less working. And xmms can even do it's own software mixing, but I would like to try oss4 so other applications also could do mixing. Does anyone know if there are ossV4 packages for fedora11 out there?</p><p>ps: I hate the name oss, it always make me think of "open source software" not an audio stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does anyone know how to get oss working in Fedora 11 ? I am currently stuck with alsa , and after removing pulse audio , anything is more or less working .
And xmms can even do it 's own software mixing , but I would like to try oss4 so other applications also could do mixing .
Does anyone know if there are ossV4 packages for fedora11 out there ? ps : I hate the name oss , it always make me think of " open source software " not an audio stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does anyone know how to get oss working in Fedora 11?I am currently stuck with alsa, and after removing pulse audio, anything is more or less working.
And xmms can even do it's own software mixing, but I would like to try oss4 so other applications also could do mixing.
Does anyone know if there are ossV4 packages for fedora11 out there?ps: I hate the name oss, it always make me think of "open source software" not an audio stack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397687</id>
	<title>Too confusing</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1245417180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a recording studio and I run Linux.<br> <br>

But not for recording.<br> <br>

I stumbled around for weeks just trying to figure out what the problem was and gave up.  OSS, ALSA, JACK, PulseAudio, WTF??  There should be a mixer and that's it.  Ardour looks nice, but if I have to screw around with a bunch of cryptic backend shit just to be able to record something it's not worth my time.<br> <br>

With Windows you install Cool Edit or Soundforge and off you go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a recording studio and I run Linux .
But not for recording .
I stumbled around for weeks just trying to figure out what the problem was and gave up .
OSS , ALSA , JACK , PulseAudio , WTF ? ?
There should be a mixer and that 's it .
Ardour looks nice , but if I have to screw around with a bunch of cryptic backend shit just to be able to record something it 's not worth my time .
With Windows you install Cool Edit or Soundforge and off you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a recording studio and I run Linux.
But not for recording.
I stumbled around for weeks just trying to figure out what the problem was and gave up.
OSS, ALSA, JACK, PulseAudio, WTF??
There should be a mixer and that's it.
Ardour looks nice, but if I have to screw around with a bunch of cryptic backend shit just to be able to record something it's not worth my time.
With Windows you install Cool Edit or Soundforge and off you go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397135</id>
	<title>PulseAudio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main reason why PulseAudio isn't a good idea:<br><br>It is just the best possible counterexample of "Just Works(tm)". In other terms: each time I try it, it just "Doesn't Work(tm)". Without it, sound works more often than not; I don't care why or how as long as it does work. Simple observation: "apt-get install pulseaudio" breaks audio, "dpkg --purge pulseaudio" repairs audio.<br><br>Hm. Maybe that's how Linux audio is supposed to be brought to a (relatively) sane state: by breaking it so terribly that rolling everything back to the previous state would almost look like a step forward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason why PulseAudio is n't a good idea : It is just the best possible counterexample of " Just Works ( tm ) " .
In other terms : each time I try it , it just " Does n't Work ( tm ) " .
Without it , sound works more often than not ; I do n't care why or how as long as it does work .
Simple observation : " apt-get install pulseaudio " breaks audio , " dpkg --purge pulseaudio " repairs audio.Hm .
Maybe that 's how Linux audio is supposed to be brought to a ( relatively ) sane state : by breaking it so terribly that rolling everything back to the previous state would almost look like a step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason why PulseAudio isn't a good idea:It is just the best possible counterexample of "Just Works(tm)".
In other terms: each time I try it, it just "Doesn't Work(tm)".
Without it, sound works more often than not; I don't care why or how as long as it does work.
Simple observation: "apt-get install pulseaudio" breaks audio, "dpkg --purge pulseaudio" repairs audio.Hm.
Maybe that's how Linux audio is supposed to be brought to a (relatively) sane state: by breaking it so terribly that rolling everything back to the previous state would almost look like a step forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401475</id>
	<title>Re:PulseAudio</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245509940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing good/bad idea with good/bad execution. PulseAudio in concept is actually more of a "Just Works" system than ALSA. The implementation just has to catch up, and it's doing just that. Version 0.9.15 works a lot better than the previous releases and doesn't crash so easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing good/bad idea with good/bad execution .
PulseAudio in concept is actually more of a " Just Works " system than ALSA .
The implementation just has to catch up , and it 's doing just that .
Version 0.9.15 works a lot better than the previous releases and does n't crash so easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing good/bad idea with good/bad execution.
PulseAudio in concept is actually more of a "Just Works" system than ALSA.
The implementation just has to catch up, and it's doing just that.
Version 0.9.15 works a lot better than the previous releases and doesn't crash so easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400903</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry - It's still pretty "sorry"...</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1245503160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure it works well for some, but many others still have problems.</p></div><p>It usually works for me but my typical gripe on the end user side is with the mixers. Here are the channels for my motherboard audio (HDA intel) :</p><ul><li>Master</li><li>Front</li><li>Surround</li><li>Center</li><li>LFE (no idea what this is)</li><li>PCM</li><li>CD</li><li>Headphone</li><li>Front Mic</li><li>Front Mic Boost</li><li>Side</li><li>Line</li><li>Mic</li><li>Mic Boost</li><li>IEC958 (huh ?)</li><li>IEC958 Default PCM</li><li>PC Speaker</li><li>Capture</li><li>Capture 2</li><li>Channel Mode (6 or 8 speakers apparently, why 8, does it do top and bottom ?)</li><li>Input Source (is that different from Capture ? or Line ?)</li><li>Input Source 2</li></ul><p>Ok, so I can use 2 headsets and 2 mikes at the same time, which can probably come in handy sometimes. And capture at least 4 sources at once. Yay.</p><p>Of course I also have a "USB sound card" in my keyboard (kind of weird I know), and my USB DTV thingie is also seen as an audio source, so there's an other mixer.<br>All in all it's certainly not very convenient to use. And figuring what app outputs where can be lots of fun too.</p><p>At least I finally have audio in Flash on my laptop with ?ubuntu 9.04. I'd wrestled with that for months and never got it to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it works well for some , but many others still have problems.It usually works for me but my typical gripe on the end user side is with the mixers .
Here are the channels for my motherboard audio ( HDA intel ) : MasterFrontSurroundCenterLFE ( no idea what this is ) PCMCDHeadphoneFront MicFront Mic BoostSideLineMicMic BoostIEC958 ( huh ?
) IEC958 Default PCMPC SpeakerCaptureCapture 2Channel Mode ( 6 or 8 speakers apparently , why 8 , does it do top and bottom ?
) Input Source ( is that different from Capture ?
or Line ?
) Input Source 2Ok , so I can use 2 headsets and 2 mikes at the same time , which can probably come in handy sometimes .
And capture at least 4 sources at once .
Yay.Of course I also have a " USB sound card " in my keyboard ( kind of weird I know ) , and my USB DTV thingie is also seen as an audio source , so there 's an other mixer.All in all it 's certainly not very convenient to use .
And figuring what app outputs where can be lots of fun too.At least I finally have audio in Flash on my laptop with ? ubuntu 9.04 .
I 'd wrestled with that for months and never got it to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it works well for some, but many others still have problems.It usually works for me but my typical gripe on the end user side is with the mixers.
Here are the channels for my motherboard audio (HDA intel) :MasterFrontSurroundCenterLFE (no idea what this is)PCMCDHeadphoneFront MicFront Mic BoostSideLineMicMic BoostIEC958 (huh ?
)IEC958 Default PCMPC SpeakerCaptureCapture 2Channel Mode (6 or 8 speakers apparently, why 8, does it do top and bottom ?
)Input Source (is that different from Capture ?
or Line ?
)Input Source 2Ok, so I can use 2 headsets and 2 mikes at the same time, which can probably come in handy sometimes.
And capture at least 4 sources at once.
Yay.Of course I also have a "USB sound card" in my keyboard (kind of weird I know), and my USB DTV thingie is also seen as an audio source, so there's an other mixer.All in all it's certainly not very convenient to use.
And figuring what app outputs where can be lots of fun too.At least I finally have audio in Flash on my laptop with ?ubuntu 9.04.
I'd wrestled with that for months and never got it to work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396717</id>
	<title>Re:it's all relative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All FUD. The fact you are using Gentoo and having problems is probably half your problem. The tools you choose to use are NOT the fault of GNU/Linux- they are your own. Apple and Microsoft by your own evaluation would be just as bad or maybe even worse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All FUD .
The fact you are using Gentoo and having problems is probably half your problem .
The tools you choose to use are NOT the fault of GNU/Linux- they are your own .
Apple and Microsoft by your own evaluation would be just as bad or maybe even worse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All FUD.
The fact you are using Gentoo and having problems is probably half your problem.
The tools you choose to use are NOT the fault of GNU/Linux- they are your own.
Apple and Microsoft by your own evaluation would be just as bad or maybe even worse!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398129</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pulseaudio had problems earlier in its development cycle, which unfortunately is coloring a number of peoples' views about it.</p><p>The latencies mentioned in the article flat out don't exist any more on a sufficiently up-to-date system, even if it's rather old hardware.</p><p>KDE4 had serious, severe issues with pulseaudio for me in version 4.1, but I don't know whether that's been handled. I strongly suspect it has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pulseaudio had problems earlier in its development cycle , which unfortunately is coloring a number of peoples ' views about it.The latencies mentioned in the article flat out do n't exist any more on a sufficiently up-to-date system , even if it 's rather old hardware.KDE4 had serious , severe issues with pulseaudio for me in version 4.1 , but I do n't know whether that 's been handled .
I strongly suspect it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pulseaudio had problems earlier in its development cycle, which unfortunately is coloring a number of peoples' views about it.The latencies mentioned in the article flat out don't exist any more on a sufficiently up-to-date system, even if it's rather old hardware.KDE4 had serious, severe issues with pulseaudio for me in version 4.1, but I don't know whether that's been handled.
I strongly suspect it has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397475</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245415380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell Yes.</p><p>Is there anyone in the know who can comment on why this is not done in Linux?  Perhaps, is there some issue with this working in principle for output but not input (microphones, etc.)?</p><p>OSS is generally my fall back solution when some app won't play audio any other way.  I would love to see it become the default, everything could be so much simpler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell Yes.Is there anyone in the know who can comment on why this is not done in Linux ?
Perhaps , is there some issue with this working in principle for output but not input ( microphones , etc .
) ? OSS is generally my fall back solution when some app wo n't play audio any other way .
I would love to see it become the default , everything could be so much simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell Yes.Is there anyone in the know who can comment on why this is not done in Linux?
Perhaps, is there some issue with this working in principle for output but not input (microphones, etc.
)?OSS is generally my fall back solution when some app won't play audio any other way.
I would love to see it become the default, everything could be so much simpler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398833</id>
	<title>Re:A sure road to success .....</title>
	<author>cboslin</author>
	<datestamp>1245428160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A great post, thank you, thank you, thank you.  The fact is that Linux is in DIRE need of a good audio solution that is reliable across hardware, across distros, <b>your API idea</b> is spot on.  It just seems logical.  I wish I had cash and could afford to pay for the development effort. I would settle for a Manager/developer position with a company that is interested in doing this!

<p>For so many ALSA just works when it is installed, not for me.

</p><p>For so many OSS just works when it is installed, not for me.

</p><p>For a few, PulseAudio just works when it is installed, not for me.

</p><p>The one thing I will fault ALSA and OSS for, is not allowing multiple audio streams to play simultaneously without crashing the system; in all circumstances.  The support forums are littered with issues like this.  It definitely dos NOT work for everyone.  At least handle one and play one, just choose one, but to crash and not play anything, that just sucks.  And to force a reboot before working again, well that is a FAIL! This is not from my personal experience, as I have posted, I could not get any of them to work for my scenario, but based on days and weeks of searching through forum posts looking for solutions, I know I am far from alone.

</p><p>I read support requests for all three: ALSA, OSS and PulseAudio.  So to date, outside of BSD (<i>which I am currently NOT running</i>, but may in the future) Linux + SOUND is a very REAL ISSUE!  (<i>see my solution at the end of this post, there is one solid solution, guaranteed to work</i>)

</p><p>For any one of these to be the best solution, they must handle additional audio streams, from any source, without crashing the system.  For instance, when my VoIP phone rings, and I answer the phone, the Audio Radio stream, CD playing, or Video should pause until I restart it and let me answer the phone and hear the person talking to me.

</p><p>Ideally if I want to listen to the music and watch a video at the same time, I should be able to mix in the sound levels and do that.  The solution should have a way to handle it.  Heck I should be able to hear the radio, video and VoIP phone all at the same time if I wanted this.  I should be able to mix the sound levels and it should work.

</p><p>Back in the mid 90s I was using a midi keyboard to play a sound track, save it.  Then use that same keyboard to play another sound track and save it. I could even convert what I played on the keyboard and make it seem like it was a different musical instrument.  An Oboe, a flute, a trumpet, etc.  The software (Audio Visual Communications 1.3 running on OS/2 1.2, when the marketeers would have you think only a MacIntosh PC could do this; I was doing it on both IBM PCs and MACs.) would then let me play back all the sound tracks together.  I could literally create my own symphony.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Based on what I read, this was one of the major things PulseAudio was going for that was NOT available in either OSS or ALSA.  The fact that OSS had gone proprietary was not helpful either.  I think they have both a proprietary and open source OSS solution today, but am not sure.</p></div><p>And this was <b>over a decade and a half ago</b>.  So Linux should have this today.  Perhaps an API solution would allow for this, but first, just to handle multiple audio streams in an intelligent way without crashing the system would be HUGE!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For anyone reading this that wants to avoid these types of issues, there is a solution.  <b>If your PC was installed with Linux out of the box</b>, with everything you need: WiFi, 10/100/1000 Ethernet, Sound (audio), Video, Burn CDs, Burn DVDs, plug n play USB support, Ext Monitor support if a netbook or laptop, You should be okay!</p></div><p>Stop going to any vendor and buying a PC with any other operating system installed on it.  Only buy hardware with Linux pre-installed and you avoid allot of issues.  Avoid  <a href="&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor\_lock-in&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">vendor LOCK IN</a> [slashdot.org].

</p><p>A vendor, that supports multiple Linux distros that has an excellent multi-media tower (runs Compiz and Beryl just fine) (and laptop) is ZaReason (<i> <a href="http://www.zareason.com/shop/product.php?productid=16193&amp;cat=249&amp;page=1" title="zareason.com" rel="nofollow">Limbo 3550</a> [zareason.com], $350 + shipping</i>).  Remember, if the hardware is built to run Linux (<i>without proprietary hardware and/or drivers</i>) it will just work.  And it will work for other distros in most cases.  The solution is to avoid proprietary hardware, especially if the vendor does not release their Windows, Linux and OS/X drivers simultaneously for new hardware.  Hint: Nvidia, Intel, Adobe (<i>granted Adobe is primarily software, not hardware, but they treat Linux and Mac OS X as an after thought</i>) readily leap to mind.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For approx $1,000 you could purchase a tower PC (<a href="http://www.zareason.com/shop/product.php?productid=16193&amp;cat=249&amp;page=1" title="zareason.com" rel="nofollow">Limbo 3550</a> [zareason.com],  <a href="http://www.zareason.com/shop/product.php?productid=16203&amp;cat=0&amp;page=1" title="zareason.com" rel="nofollow">Breeze 3660</a> [zareason.com]) + netbook (<a href="&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asus\_Eee\_PC\%23Eee\_900\_Series&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Asus Eee PC</a> [slashdot.org]) + handheld Linux Smartphone (<a href="&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N800&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Nokia N800</a> [slashdot.org], <a href="&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N810&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Nokia N810</a> [slashdot.org] or any handheld running <a href="&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;http://maemo.org/&amp;\%23226;&amp;\%238364;" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Maemo</a> [slashdot.org]!); and no worries about tethering, text messaging fees, or other proprietary BS; as you would have full blown Linux and could install software and do so much more than with any vendor-locked in, proprietary solution.</p></div><p>That is why buying a PC, laptop or netbook with Windows installed with the intention of installing Linux is a dicey proposition.  DO NOT DO IT! Remember, the proprietary companies DO NOT WANT YOU TO RUN LINUX.  Of course that will not stop a big box store employee from telling you that the hardware will run Linux, many times they have no idea, but they want the sale.  So do not buy hardware that does not come installed with Linux out of the box and you will avoid many, many issues

</p><p>It is as simple as that!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A great post , thank you , thank you , thank you .
The fact is that Linux is in DIRE need of a good audio solution that is reliable across hardware , across distros , your API idea is spot on .
It just seems logical .
I wish I had cash and could afford to pay for the development effort .
I would settle for a Manager/developer position with a company that is interested in doing this !
For so many ALSA just works when it is installed , not for me .
For so many OSS just works when it is installed , not for me .
For a few , PulseAudio just works when it is installed , not for me .
The one thing I will fault ALSA and OSS for , is not allowing multiple audio streams to play simultaneously without crashing the system ; in all circumstances .
The support forums are littered with issues like this .
It definitely dos NOT work for everyone .
At least handle one and play one , just choose one , but to crash and not play anything , that just sucks .
And to force a reboot before working again , well that is a FAIL !
This is not from my personal experience , as I have posted , I could not get any of them to work for my scenario , but based on days and weeks of searching through forum posts looking for solutions , I know I am far from alone .
I read support requests for all three : ALSA , OSS and PulseAudio .
So to date , outside of BSD ( which I am currently NOT running , but may in the future ) Linux + SOUND is a very REAL ISSUE !
( see my solution at the end of this post , there is one solid solution , guaranteed to work ) For any one of these to be the best solution , they must handle additional audio streams , from any source , without crashing the system .
For instance , when my VoIP phone rings , and I answer the phone , the Audio Radio stream , CD playing , or Video should pause until I restart it and let me answer the phone and hear the person talking to me .
Ideally if I want to listen to the music and watch a video at the same time , I should be able to mix in the sound levels and do that .
The solution should have a way to handle it .
Heck I should be able to hear the radio , video and VoIP phone all at the same time if I wanted this .
I should be able to mix the sound levels and it should work .
Back in the mid 90s I was using a midi keyboard to play a sound track , save it .
Then use that same keyboard to play another sound track and save it .
I could even convert what I played on the keyboard and make it seem like it was a different musical instrument .
An Oboe , a flute , a trumpet , etc .
The software ( Audio Visual Communications 1.3 running on OS/2 1.2 , when the marketeers would have you think only a MacIntosh PC could do this ; I was doing it on both IBM PCs and MACs .
) would then let me play back all the sound tracks together .
I could literally create my own symphony.Based on what I read , this was one of the major things PulseAudio was going for that was NOT available in either OSS or ALSA .
The fact that OSS had gone proprietary was not helpful either .
I think they have both a proprietary and open source OSS solution today , but am not sure.And this was over a decade and a half ago .
So Linux should have this today .
Perhaps an API solution would allow for this , but first , just to handle multiple audio streams in an intelligent way without crashing the system would be HUGE ! For anyone reading this that wants to avoid these types of issues , there is a solution .
If your PC was installed with Linux out of the box , with everything you need : WiFi , 10/100/1000 Ethernet , Sound ( audio ) , Video , Burn CDs , Burn DVDs , plug n play USB support , Ext Monitor support if a netbook or laptop , You should be okay ! Stop going to any vendor and buying a PC with any other operating system installed on it .
Only buy hardware with Linux pre-installed and you avoid allot of issues .
Avoid vendor LOCK IN [ slashdot.org ] .
A vendor , that supports multiple Linux distros that has an excellent multi-media tower ( runs Compiz and Beryl just fine ) ( and laptop ) is ZaReason ( Limbo 3550 [ zareason.com ] , $ 350 + shipping ) .
Remember , if the hardware is built to run Linux ( without proprietary hardware and/or drivers ) it will just work .
And it will work for other distros in most cases .
The solution is to avoid proprietary hardware , especially if the vendor does not release their Windows , Linux and OS/X drivers simultaneously for new hardware .
Hint : Nvidia , Intel , Adobe ( granted Adobe is primarily software , not hardware , but they treat Linux and Mac OS X as an after thought ) readily leap to mind.For approx $ 1,000 you could purchase a tower PC ( Limbo 3550 [ zareason.com ] , Breeze 3660 [ zareason.com ] ) + netbook ( Asus Eee PC [ slashdot.org ] ) + handheld Linux Smartphone ( Nokia N800 [ slashdot.org ] , Nokia N810 [ slashdot.org ] or any handheld running Maemo [ slashdot.org ] !
) ; and no worries about tethering , text messaging fees , or other proprietary BS ; as you would have full blown Linux and could install software and do so much more than with any vendor-locked in , proprietary solution.That is why buying a PC , laptop or netbook with Windows installed with the intention of installing Linux is a dicey proposition .
DO NOT DO IT !
Remember , the proprietary companies DO NOT WANT YOU TO RUN LINUX .
Of course that will not stop a big box store employee from telling you that the hardware will run Linux , many times they have no idea , but they want the sale .
So do not buy hardware that does not come installed with Linux out of the box and you will avoid many , many issues It is as simple as that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A great post, thank you, thank you, thank you.
The fact is that Linux is in DIRE need of a good audio solution that is reliable across hardware, across distros, your API idea is spot on.
It just seems logical.
I wish I had cash and could afford to pay for the development effort.
I would settle for a Manager/developer position with a company that is interested in doing this!
For so many ALSA just works when it is installed, not for me.
For so many OSS just works when it is installed, not for me.
For a few, PulseAudio just works when it is installed, not for me.
The one thing I will fault ALSA and OSS for, is not allowing multiple audio streams to play simultaneously without crashing the system; in all circumstances.
The support forums are littered with issues like this.
It definitely dos NOT work for everyone.
At least handle one and play one, just choose one, but to crash and not play anything, that just sucks.
And to force a reboot before working again, well that is a FAIL!
This is not from my personal experience, as I have posted, I could not get any of them to work for my scenario, but based on days and weeks of searching through forum posts looking for solutions, I know I am far from alone.
I read support requests for all three: ALSA, OSS and PulseAudio.
So to date, outside of BSD (which I am currently NOT running, but may in the future) Linux + SOUND is a very REAL ISSUE!
(see my solution at the end of this post, there is one solid solution, guaranteed to work)

For any one of these to be the best solution, they must handle additional audio streams, from any source, without crashing the system.
For instance, when my VoIP phone rings, and I answer the phone, the Audio Radio stream, CD playing, or Video should pause until I restart it and let me answer the phone and hear the person talking to me.
Ideally if I want to listen to the music and watch a video at the same time, I should be able to mix in the sound levels and do that.
The solution should have a way to handle it.
Heck I should be able to hear the radio, video and VoIP phone all at the same time if I wanted this.
I should be able to mix the sound levels and it should work.
Back in the mid 90s I was using a midi keyboard to play a sound track, save it.
Then use that same keyboard to play another sound track and save it.
I could even convert what I played on the keyboard and make it seem like it was a different musical instrument.
An Oboe, a flute, a trumpet, etc.
The software (Audio Visual Communications 1.3 running on OS/2 1.2, when the marketeers would have you think only a MacIntosh PC could do this; I was doing it on both IBM PCs and MACs.
) would then let me play back all the sound tracks together.
I could literally create my own symphony.Based on what I read, this was one of the major things PulseAudio was going for that was NOT available in either OSS or ALSA.
The fact that OSS had gone proprietary was not helpful either.
I think they have both a proprietary and open source OSS solution today, but am not sure.And this was over a decade and a half ago.
So Linux should have this today.
Perhaps an API solution would allow for this, but first, just to handle multiple audio streams in an intelligent way without crashing the system would be HUGE!For anyone reading this that wants to avoid these types of issues, there is a solution.
If your PC was installed with Linux out of the box, with everything you need: WiFi, 10/100/1000 Ethernet, Sound (audio), Video, Burn CDs, Burn DVDs, plug n play USB support, Ext Monitor support if a netbook or laptop, You should be okay!Stop going to any vendor and buying a PC with any other operating system installed on it.
Only buy hardware with Linux pre-installed and you avoid allot of issues.
Avoid  vendor LOCK IN [slashdot.org].
A vendor, that supports multiple Linux distros that has an excellent multi-media tower (runs Compiz and Beryl just fine) (and laptop) is ZaReason ( Limbo 3550 [zareason.com], $350 + shipping).
Remember, if the hardware is built to run Linux (without proprietary hardware and/or drivers) it will just work.
And it will work for other distros in most cases.
The solution is to avoid proprietary hardware, especially if the vendor does not release their Windows, Linux and OS/X drivers simultaneously for new hardware.
Hint: Nvidia, Intel, Adobe (granted Adobe is primarily software, not hardware, but they treat Linux and Mac OS X as an after thought) readily leap to mind.For approx $1,000 you could purchase a tower PC (Limbo 3550 [zareason.com],  Breeze 3660 [zareason.com]) + netbook (Asus Eee PC [slashdot.org]) + handheld Linux Smartphone (Nokia N800 [slashdot.org], Nokia N810 [slashdot.org] or any handheld running Maemo [slashdot.org]!
); and no worries about tethering, text messaging fees, or other proprietary BS; as you would have full blown Linux and could install software and do so much more than with any vendor-locked in, proprietary solution.That is why buying a PC, laptop or netbook with Windows installed with the intention of installing Linux is a dicey proposition.
DO NOT DO IT!
Remember, the proprietary companies DO NOT WANT YOU TO RUN LINUX.
Of course that will not stop a big box store employee from telling you that the hardware will run Linux, many times they have no idea, but they want the sale.
So do not buy hardware that does not come installed with Linux out of the box and you will avoid many, many issues

It is as simple as that!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398187</id>
	<title>Working drivers. Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1245420960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, KDE and Gnome != Linux. Last time I checked they both ran on FreeBSD too. They are the real problem. When I first started playing with sound on Linux (probably 1996 or so), OSS was the established standard for the kernel. I think there were some other devices for compatibility, but Linux developers used OSS.

</p><p>Then around 2000 or so, ALSA started to show up as a viable project. It supported low latency sound and was more reliable for syncing sound to video. Obviously, you want this for playing video games or watching movies. Quite a few distro maintainers jumped on it and added it to their distro before it was added into the mainline kernel. Eventually it was added, and they kept OSS for backwards compatibility.

</p><p>Until recently, yes, Linux didn't support multichannel audio, but now ALSA does, and it does "just work." Most of those daemons were created to patch on support for multichannel and networking. I assume those must be the "incompatible APIs" you were talking about.

</p><p>There is one daemon called jack which seems to be good for audio editing--it is a whole routing system for audio, but I doubt one would need to use it for just playing sound since ALSA seems to have all the features, and ALSA was never superseded by anything else like you implied. Jack, esd, pulseaudio, artsd (unless it uses esd), &amp; etc all use ALSA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , KDE and Gnome ! = Linux .
Last time I checked they both ran on FreeBSD too .
They are the real problem .
When I first started playing with sound on Linux ( probably 1996 or so ) , OSS was the established standard for the kernel .
I think there were some other devices for compatibility , but Linux developers used OSS .
Then around 2000 or so , ALSA started to show up as a viable project .
It supported low latency sound and was more reliable for syncing sound to video .
Obviously , you want this for playing video games or watching movies .
Quite a few distro maintainers jumped on it and added it to their distro before it was added into the mainline kernel .
Eventually it was added , and they kept OSS for backwards compatibility .
Until recently , yes , Linux did n't support multichannel audio , but now ALSA does , and it does " just work .
" Most of those daemons were created to patch on support for multichannel and networking .
I assume those must be the " incompatible APIs " you were talking about .
There is one daemon called jack which seems to be good for audio editing--it is a whole routing system for audio , but I doubt one would need to use it for just playing sound since ALSA seems to have all the features , and ALSA was never superseded by anything else like you implied .
Jack , esd , pulseaudio , artsd ( unless it uses esd ) , &amp; etc all use ALSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, KDE and Gnome != Linux.
Last time I checked they both ran on FreeBSD too.
They are the real problem.
When I first started playing with sound on Linux (probably 1996 or so), OSS was the established standard for the kernel.
I think there were some other devices for compatibility, but Linux developers used OSS.
Then around 2000 or so, ALSA started to show up as a viable project.
It supported low latency sound and was more reliable for syncing sound to video.
Obviously, you want this for playing video games or watching movies.
Quite a few distro maintainers jumped on it and added it to their distro before it was added into the mainline kernel.
Eventually it was added, and they kept OSS for backwards compatibility.
Until recently, yes, Linux didn't support multichannel audio, but now ALSA does, and it does "just work.
" Most of those daemons were created to patch on support for multichannel and networking.
I assume those must be the "incompatible APIs" you were talking about.
There is one daemon called jack which seems to be good for audio editing--it is a whole routing system for audio, but I doubt one would need to use it for just playing sound since ALSA seems to have all the features, and ALSA was never superseded by anything else like you implied.
Jack, esd, pulseaudio, artsd (unless it uses esd), &amp; etc all use ALSA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396679</id>
	<title>Re:it's all relative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you even bother to read the first paragraph of the article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even bother to read the first paragraph of the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even bother to read the first paragraph of the article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397069</id>
	<title>Re:ALSA was a mistake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSS sucked because it was payware.  If you bought a new soundcard, you had to pay to expect it to work properly.  If you wanted all the features to work on your card, you had to pay to get them all.  If you wanted mixer support, you had to pay for it.  Oh, yeah, sure, you could hack up the kernel OSS as much as you liked.  Big deal.  The payware version was already done and you knew your changes would get wiped out once they decided they made enough money from the commercial ones to "give back" to linux.</p><p>ALSA's goal was to give you everything the payware version of OSS gave you, but for capital-F Free the moment the features were publicly available.  It did that well.</p><p>OSS went into obscurity for linux after ALSA kicked their collective asses.  I'm willing to bet 4front would offer it all for free, now, considering what they got by not doing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS sucked because it was payware .
If you bought a new soundcard , you had to pay to expect it to work properly .
If you wanted all the features to work on your card , you had to pay to get them all .
If you wanted mixer support , you had to pay for it .
Oh , yeah , sure , you could hack up the kernel OSS as much as you liked .
Big deal .
The payware version was already done and you knew your changes would get wiped out once they decided they made enough money from the commercial ones to " give back " to linux.ALSA 's goal was to give you everything the payware version of OSS gave you , but for capital-F Free the moment the features were publicly available .
It did that well.OSS went into obscurity for linux after ALSA kicked their collective asses .
I 'm willing to bet 4front would offer it all for free , now , considering what they got by not doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS sucked because it was payware.
If you bought a new soundcard, you had to pay to expect it to work properly.
If you wanted all the features to work on your card, you had to pay to get them all.
If you wanted mixer support, you had to pay for it.
Oh, yeah, sure, you could hack up the kernel OSS as much as you liked.
Big deal.
The payware version was already done and you knew your changes would get wiped out once they decided they made enough money from the commercial ones to "give back" to linux.ALSA's goal was to give you everything the payware version of OSS gave you, but for capital-F Free the moment the features were publicly available.
It did that well.OSS went into obscurity for linux after ALSA kicked their collective asses.
I'm willing to bet 4front would offer it all for free, now, considering what they got by not doing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397167</id>
	<title>multiple sound cards and braindead applications</title>
	<author>caitriona81</author>
	<datestamp>1245412920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My chief complaint, both on Windows and Linux is that probably 99\% of applications have no concept of anything other than the default sound card, making multiple cards useless for all but a few niche applications. Apps that use sound need to provide a way to specify which device is used in case the user wants to use other than the default, period. None of the solutions for audio so far have really done anything to make this better (or they make it worse in the process) - granted, it's mostly an application issue, but control of device selection in the mixer as well would help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My chief complaint , both on Windows and Linux is that probably 99 \ % of applications have no concept of anything other than the default sound card , making multiple cards useless for all but a few niche applications .
Apps that use sound need to provide a way to specify which device is used in case the user wants to use other than the default , period .
None of the solutions for audio so far have really done anything to make this better ( or they make it worse in the process ) - granted , it 's mostly an application issue , but control of device selection in the mixer as well would help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My chief complaint, both on Windows and Linux is that probably 99\% of applications have no concept of anything other than the default sound card, making multiple cards useless for all but a few niche applications.
Apps that use sound need to provide a way to specify which device is used in case the user wants to use other than the default, period.
None of the solutions for audio so far have really done anything to make this better (or they make it worse in the process) - granted, it's mostly an application issue, but control of device selection in the mixer as well would help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401055</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>qieurowfhbvdklsj</author>
	<datestamp>1245505440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?</i></p><p>Some people have it in their heads that the only things that should be in kernel space are things that absolutely have to be, and everything else should be in user space.  Since mixing doesn't absolutely have to be in kernel space, they decided to do it in user space.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but, from user space, you can't receive device file ioctls, and so the userspace portion is alsalib, which is C, which means that if you want to use ALSA, you have to write in C.  Sure, you could link to the libraries in any compiled langauge, but you'll still need those header files, and they're only in C.</p><p>Moronic decisions such as this piss me off.  The purpose of a monolithic kernel is to provide services for applications so that they don't have to run on bare hardware, instead they run on an idealized system, regardless of the features of the actual hardware.  For example, we don't say that you need ten CPUs to run ten processes at once, so why should my sound card have to have ten hardware mixers to play ten audio streams at once?  The kernel multitasks the CPU, but why not the sound card?</p><p>Doing the bare minimum in each process is a micro kernel design.  Personally, I'd prefer a micro kernel, but Linux just isn't designed that way, and trying to both at once just gives you the worst of both designs.</p><p>Another area that really pisses me off is video drivers.  X11 should not be the video driver, it should be an ordinary application that implements the X11 protocol via the kernel's video API.  It's very slowing moving in that direction, but it's far from there yet.  Things like "/dev/fb0" are bare-minimum solutions, for example, they don't implement console switching.  Writing to the device writes directly to the screen no matter which console you switch to.</p><p>It's really dumb.  The kernel has full and complete drivers for network cards, USB devices, hard drives, and everything else except audio and video where it does the bare minimum, creating situations where, for example, typing "killall -9 X" leaves your system completely fucked, whereas what should happen is that X11 dies, and the kernel kicks the console back to the text mode it was in before X11 asked for a graphics mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So again , what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old " obsolete " OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions ? Some people have it in their heads that the only things that should be in kernel space are things that absolutely have to be , and everything else should be in user space .
Since mixing does n't absolutely have to be in kernel space , they decided to do it in user space .
...but , from user space , you ca n't receive device file ioctls , and so the userspace portion is alsalib , which is C , which means that if you want to use ALSA , you have to write in C. Sure , you could link to the libraries in any compiled langauge , but you 'll still need those header files , and they 're only in C.Moronic decisions such as this piss me off .
The purpose of a monolithic kernel is to provide services for applications so that they do n't have to run on bare hardware , instead they run on an idealized system , regardless of the features of the actual hardware .
For example , we do n't say that you need ten CPUs to run ten processes at once , so why should my sound card have to have ten hardware mixers to play ten audio streams at once ?
The kernel multitasks the CPU , but why not the sound card ? Doing the bare minimum in each process is a micro kernel design .
Personally , I 'd prefer a micro kernel , but Linux just is n't designed that way , and trying to both at once just gives you the worst of both designs.Another area that really pisses me off is video drivers .
X11 should not be the video driver , it should be an ordinary application that implements the X11 protocol via the kernel 's video API .
It 's very slowing moving in that direction , but it 's far from there yet .
Things like " /dev/fb0 " are bare-minimum solutions , for example , they do n't implement console switching .
Writing to the device writes directly to the screen no matter which console you switch to.It 's really dumb .
The kernel has full and complete drivers for network cards , USB devices , hard drives , and everything else except audio and video where it does the bare minimum , creating situations where , for example , typing " killall -9 X " leaves your system completely fucked , whereas what should happen is that X11 dies , and the kernel kicks the console back to the text mode it was in before X11 asked for a graphics mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?Some people have it in their heads that the only things that should be in kernel space are things that absolutely have to be, and everything else should be in user space.
Since mixing doesn't absolutely have to be in kernel space, they decided to do it in user space.
...but, from user space, you can't receive device file ioctls, and so the userspace portion is alsalib, which is C, which means that if you want to use ALSA, you have to write in C.  Sure, you could link to the libraries in any compiled langauge, but you'll still need those header files, and they're only in C.Moronic decisions such as this piss me off.
The purpose of a monolithic kernel is to provide services for applications so that they don't have to run on bare hardware, instead they run on an idealized system, regardless of the features of the actual hardware.
For example, we don't say that you need ten CPUs to run ten processes at once, so why should my sound card have to have ten hardware mixers to play ten audio streams at once?
The kernel multitasks the CPU, but why not the sound card?Doing the bare minimum in each process is a micro kernel design.
Personally, I'd prefer a micro kernel, but Linux just isn't designed that way, and trying to both at once just gives you the worst of both designs.Another area that really pisses me off is video drivers.
X11 should not be the video driver, it should be an ordinary application that implements the X11 protocol via the kernel's video API.
It's very slowing moving in that direction, but it's far from there yet.
Things like "/dev/fb0" are bare-minimum solutions, for example, they don't implement console switching.
Writing to the device writes directly to the screen no matter which console you switch to.It's really dumb.
The kernel has full and complete drivers for network cards, USB devices, hard drives, and everything else except audio and video where it does the bare minimum, creating situations where, for example, typing "killall -9 X" leaves your system completely fucked, whereas what should happen is that X11 dies, and the kernel kicks the console back to the text mode it was in before X11 asked for a graphics mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28415053</id>
	<title>Re:So, when do we go ALSA - OSSv4?</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1245591780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>dropping ALSA altogether would break nearly ALL the current linux applications,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>nowadays many applications will make use of high level libraries that hide the details of the sound system from them</p></div></blockquote><p>So which is it? Nevermind don't answer, I already know that no one uses that piece of shit ALSA API.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>dropping ALSA altogether would break nearly ALL the current linux applications , ...nowadays many applications will make use of high level libraries that hide the details of the sound system from themSo which is it ?
Nevermind do n't answer , I already know that no one uses that piece of shit ALSA API .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dropping ALSA altogether would break nearly ALL the current linux applications, ...nowadays many applications will make use of high level libraries that hide the details of the sound system from themSo which is it?
Nevermind don't answer, I already know that no one uses that piece of shit ALSA API.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398735</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245426840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If Pulse Audio really sucks, then Linux Audio really is in a sorry state</p></div><p>No, because you do not have to use Pulseaudio.</p></div><p>Except that means you need to <em>uninstall</em> PA (and not just not actively use it - it locks up the audio device and you can't use alsa concurrently).  Which means the distro just shipped a broken-by-default configuration.</p><p>Choice is good.  <em>Needing to choose</em> just to get sound to work is bad.  Opt-in is good.  Opt-out is bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Pulse Audio really sucks , then Linux Audio really is in a sorry stateNo , because you do not have to use Pulseaudio.Except that means you need to uninstall PA ( and not just not actively use it - it locks up the audio device and you ca n't use alsa concurrently ) .
Which means the distro just shipped a broken-by-default configuration.Choice is good .
Needing to choose just to get sound to work is bad .
Opt-in is good .
Opt-out is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Pulse Audio really sucks, then Linux Audio really is in a sorry stateNo, because you do not have to use Pulseaudio.Except that means you need to uninstall PA (and not just not actively use it - it locks up the audio device and you can't use alsa concurrently).
Which means the distro just shipped a broken-by-default configuration.Choice is good.
Needing to choose just to get sound to work is bad.
Opt-in is good.
Opt-out is bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397221</id>
	<title>Re:The fundamental problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not understand how Alsa differs from the in-kernel specification you are proposing. It exposes every possible hardware feature via a well-defined common api.<br>
Moreover, I don&rsquo;t think many programmers get excited about managing audio buffers and performing sample rate and format conversion, so they would still need a userspace library to do at least those jobs (the kernel can&rsquo;t even do floating point!). So here comes PulseAudio, which gives the developers a far greater freedom than any kernel-based implementation could ever do. How would you deal in-kernel with features like sound over bluetooth, user-provided codecs, sound over the network, or sound redirection for whatever reason you could ever think of?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand how Alsa differs from the in-kernel specification you are proposing .
It exposes every possible hardware feature via a well-defined common api .
Moreover , I don    t think many programmers get excited about managing audio buffers and performing sample rate and format conversion , so they would still need a userspace library to do at least those jobs ( the kernel can    t even do floating point ! ) .
So here comes PulseAudio , which gives the developers a far greater freedom than any kernel-based implementation could ever do .
How would you deal in-kernel with features like sound over bluetooth , user-provided codecs , sound over the network , or sound redirection for whatever reason you could ever think of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand how Alsa differs from the in-kernel specification you are proposing.
It exposes every possible hardware feature via a well-defined common api.
Moreover, I don’t think many programmers get excited about managing audio buffers and performing sample rate and format conversion, so they would still need a userspace library to do at least those jobs (the kernel can’t even do floating point!).
So here comes PulseAudio, which gives the developers a far greater freedom than any kernel-based implementation could ever do.
How would you deal in-kernel with features like sound over bluetooth, user-provided codecs, sound over the network, or sound redirection for whatever reason you could ever think of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399489</id>
	<title>ossalsa</title>
	<author>Thermionix</author>
	<datestamp>1245436500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't say I'm impressed with alsa,

oss4 on the other hand is godlike<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... simple fast and working</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't say I 'm impressed with alsa , oss4 on the other hand is godlike ... simple fast and working</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't say I'm impressed with alsa,

oss4 on the other hand is godlike ... simple fast and working</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398193</id>
	<title>simple system equalizer with balance control</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1245420960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't seem to find any such thing. My computer/media centre goes into my stereo amp which doesn't have L/R balance. I was hoping for a simple tool to do this in the computer. Couldn't find one. Does anyone have a suggestion?</p><p>Audio in Linux is hard. Audio is such a different direction from the original purpose of server. And part of the hardness is all the different systems Pulse, ALSA, OSS etc which many people (like me) can't understand the difference between. X.org is in way better shape than audio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't seem to find any such thing .
My computer/media centre goes into my stereo amp which does n't have L/R balance .
I was hoping for a simple tool to do this in the computer .
Could n't find one .
Does anyone have a suggestion ? Audio in Linux is hard .
Audio is such a different direction from the original purpose of server .
And part of the hardness is all the different systems Pulse , ALSA , OSS etc which many people ( like me ) ca n't understand the difference between .
X.org is in way better shape than audio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't seem to find any such thing.
My computer/media centre goes into my stereo amp which doesn't have L/R balance.
I was hoping for a simple tool to do this in the computer.
Couldn't find one.
Does anyone have a suggestion?Audio in Linux is hard.
Audio is such a different direction from the original purpose of server.
And part of the hardness is all the different systems Pulse, ALSA, OSS etc which many people (like me) can't understand the difference between.
X.org is in way better shape than audio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400257</id>
	<title>not a chance</title>
	<author>adamgolding</author>
	<datestamp>1245492120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reality is this:  it is already a difficult compromise choosing audio software to work with on PC or Mac platforms.  Only people who aren't serious about their work really have time to worry about linux solutions here.  Composers are only just now beginning to see anything like a move towards a merger of sequencers and notation programs, with Sibelius and Finale adding limited audio support and Cubase adding better support for orchestral articulations and some improved notation capabilities.  Protools added some code taken from Sibelius but it's still rudimentary.  Competition in terms of features is very tight between these various alternatives, and it's not like OpenOffice&#226;'it can't just do 'more or less, the main tasks we need'.  The open source software has to actually be *better* than the existing options.  Whenever I wonder again about this I just compare the 'new' features in the most recent version of Cubase or Sibelius to the most recent features in the open source alternatives and I can only laugh...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is this : it is already a difficult compromise choosing audio software to work with on PC or Mac platforms .
Only people who are n't serious about their work really have time to worry about linux solutions here .
Composers are only just now beginning to see anything like a move towards a merger of sequencers and notation programs , with Sibelius and Finale adding limited audio support and Cubase adding better support for orchestral articulations and some improved notation capabilities .
Protools added some code taken from Sibelius but it 's still rudimentary .
Competition in terms of features is very tight between these various alternatives , and it 's not like OpenOffice   'it ca n't just do 'more or less , the main tasks we need' .
The open source software has to actually be * better * than the existing options .
Whenever I wonder again about this I just compare the 'new ' features in the most recent version of Cubase or Sibelius to the most recent features in the open source alternatives and I can only laugh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is this:  it is already a difficult compromise choosing audio software to work with on PC or Mac platforms.
Only people who aren't serious about their work really have time to worry about linux solutions here.
Composers are only just now beginning to see anything like a move towards a merger of sequencers and notation programs, with Sibelius and Finale adding limited audio support and Cubase adding better support for orchestral articulations and some improved notation capabilities.
Protools added some code taken from Sibelius but it's still rudimentary.
Competition in terms of features is very tight between these various alternatives, and it's not like OpenOfficeâ'it can't just do 'more or less, the main tasks we need'.
The open source software has to actually be *better* than the existing options.
Whenever I wonder again about this I just compare the 'new' features in the most recent version of Cubase or Sibelius to the most recent features in the open source alternatives and I can only laugh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399659</id>
	<title>Re:PulseAudio...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245439260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right On!</p><p>ALSA may not be perfect, but now it has software mixing, it beats pulse hands down. I followed pulses promises, each time I would try it - get the latest sources, I'm not even the type to be too concerned about latency. Each time, pulse would blow me away in what it could do for me and then within minutes of having it configured for my different sound devices, it would do something stupid, like lose a stream, freeze an app, even an app like mplayer that has native pulse support. Pulse never played music without inserting intermittent pops.
</p><p>I maybe doing strange things like tweaking realtime scheduling on different apps as I process batch conversions on idle nice whilst playing HD videos with realtime priority. ALSA handles this perfectly BTW.</p><p>Maybe this is why pulse hates me.</p><p>Bloat and instability, I don't care if pulse can juggle 5 balls and pee into the bowl at the same time, it never takes long for it all go wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right On ! ALSA may not be perfect , but now it has software mixing , it beats pulse hands down .
I followed pulses promises , each time I would try it - get the latest sources , I 'm not even the type to be too concerned about latency .
Each time , pulse would blow me away in what it could do for me and then within minutes of having it configured for my different sound devices , it would do something stupid , like lose a stream , freeze an app , even an app like mplayer that has native pulse support .
Pulse never played music without inserting intermittent pops .
I maybe doing strange things like tweaking realtime scheduling on different apps as I process batch conversions on idle nice whilst playing HD videos with realtime priority .
ALSA handles this perfectly BTW.Maybe this is why pulse hates me.Bloat and instability , I do n't care if pulse can juggle 5 balls and pee into the bowl at the same time , it never takes long for it all go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right On!ALSA may not be perfect, but now it has software mixing, it beats pulse hands down.
I followed pulses promises, each time I would try it - get the latest sources, I'm not even the type to be too concerned about latency.
Each time, pulse would blow me away in what it could do for me and then within minutes of having it configured for my different sound devices, it would do something stupid, like lose a stream, freeze an app, even an app like mplayer that has native pulse support.
Pulse never played music without inserting intermittent pops.
I maybe doing strange things like tweaking realtime scheduling on different apps as I process batch conversions on idle nice whilst playing HD videos with realtime priority.
ALSA handles this perfectly BTW.Maybe this is why pulse hates me.Bloat and instability, I don't care if pulse can juggle 5 balls and pee into the bowl at the same time, it never takes long for it all go wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396653</id>
	<title>Still have problems</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1245410100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until developers can write apps and be sure that they will behave as he expects when it comes to sound across the vast majority of distros, I am afraid that we in the Linux world will still be playing catch up when it comes to multimedia. Sadly, the article did not show that things are improving in any way!</p><p>So much for the so called "freedom of choice"...but what's wrong with choosing a technology and throwing all development efforts behind it?</p><p>Those who crave the freedom to do whatever they want can still do precisely that since Linux and most software that makes a distro is open source.</p><p>The mere fact that there are folks that "spread FUD" is indicative of a degree of problems when it comes to Linux and sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until developers can write apps and be sure that they will behave as he expects when it comes to sound across the vast majority of distros , I am afraid that we in the Linux world will still be playing catch up when it comes to multimedia .
Sadly , the article did not show that things are improving in any way ! So much for the so called " freedom of choice " ...but what 's wrong with choosing a technology and throwing all development efforts behind it ? Those who crave the freedom to do whatever they want can still do precisely that since Linux and most software that makes a distro is open source.The mere fact that there are folks that " spread FUD " is indicative of a degree of problems when it comes to Linux and sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until developers can write apps and be sure that they will behave as he expects when it comes to sound across the vast majority of distros, I am afraid that we in the Linux world will still be playing catch up when it comes to multimedia.
Sadly, the article did not show that things are improving in any way!So much for the so called "freedom of choice"...but what's wrong with choosing a technology and throwing all development efforts behind it?Those who crave the freedom to do whatever they want can still do precisely that since Linux and most software that makes a distro is open source.The mere fact that there are folks that "spread FUD" is indicative of a degree of problems when it comes to Linux and sound.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402983</id>
	<title>Re:Graphs</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245523260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is GStreamer or SDL or OpenAL part of Windows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is GStreamer or SDL or OpenAL part of Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is GStreamer or SDL or OpenAL part of Windows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397741</id>
	<title>Re:it's all relative</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1245417480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GarageBand and Pro Tools are toys, though.  No serious musician would use them for anything other than quickly sketching out an idea.</p><p>If you want to do *serious* recording you need to put away the &pound;4.99 Argos crap and get a Mackie HDR, which runs - you guessed it - Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GarageBand and Pro Tools are toys , though .
No serious musician would use them for anything other than quickly sketching out an idea.If you want to do * serious * recording you need to put away the   4.99 Argos crap and get a Mackie HDR , which runs - you guessed it - Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GarageBand and Pro Tools are toys, though.
No serious musician would use them for anything other than quickly sketching out an idea.If you want to do *serious* recording you need to put away the £4.99 Argos crap and get a Mackie HDR, which runs - you guessed it - Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399871</id>
	<title>Adobe don't know Jack ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just proves Adobe don't know Jack, or Jack Control, or JackEQ, or Jackbeat, or Jack Rack<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just proves Adobe do n't know Jack , or Jack Control , or JackEQ , or Jackbeat , or Jack Rack .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just proves Adobe don't know Jack, or Jack Control, or JackEQ, or Jackbeat, or Jack Rack ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398183</id>
	<title>So, when do we go ALSA -&gt; OSSv4?</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1245420900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the charts, and looking in a few other places, it is clear to me that OSSv4 is the way to go.</p><p>So, when does this start to happen? I tried this a few months ago, and I had to patch my kernel and do all sorts of other things that ended up hosing sound completely (since I'm not a developer, asking me to do developer-ly things is trouble).</p><p>When will it be a simple switch in the kernel config, or a simple matter of installing a package in the major distros?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the charts , and looking in a few other places , it is clear to me that OSSv4 is the way to go.So , when does this start to happen ?
I tried this a few months ago , and I had to patch my kernel and do all sorts of other things that ended up hosing sound completely ( since I 'm not a developer , asking me to do developer-ly things is trouble ) .When will it be a simple switch in the kernel config , or a simple matter of installing a package in the major distros ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the charts, and looking in a few other places, it is clear to me that OSSv4 is the way to go.So, when does this start to happen?
I tried this a few months ago, and I had to patch my kernel and do all sorts of other things that ended up hosing sound completely (since I'm not a developer, asking me to do developer-ly things is trouble).When will it be a simple switch in the kernel config, or a simple matter of installing a package in the major distros?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396487</id>
	<title>Sorry - It's still pretty "sorry"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, it is.</p><p>It can be a pain in the ass to get working still, and is buggy.</p><p>I'm sure it works well for some, but many others still have problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , it is.It can be a pain in the ass to get working still , and is buggy.I 'm sure it works well for some , but many others still have problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, it is.It can be a pain in the ass to get working still, and is buggy.I'm sure it works well for some, but many others still have problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28408039</id>
	<title>Re:The fundamental problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you describe is a real mess. Depending on the level you look at, ALSA does provice a basic sound API, then the next level is a lib that builds on that basic API, and you have in-kernel drivers that implement the device-specific basic functions. What else do you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you describe is a real mess .
Depending on the level you look at , ALSA does provice a basic sound API , then the next level is a lib that builds on that basic API , and you have in-kernel drivers that implement the device-specific basic functions .
What else do you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you describe is a real mess.
Depending on the level you look at, ALSA does provice a basic sound API, then the next level is a lib that builds on that basic API, and you have in-kernel drivers that implement the device-specific basic functions.
What else do you want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397113</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No problems with latency, audio has saved me plenty of times of not getting raped from behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No problems with latency , audio has saved me plenty of times of not getting raped from behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No problems with latency, audio has saved me plenty of times of not getting raped from behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397287</id>
	<title>Sorry state of web readability...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245413820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real sorry state is that guy's ability to write a readable web page.  He forgot what bullets are halfway through, or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real sorry state is that guy 's ability to write a readable web page .
He forgot what bullets are halfway through , or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real sorry state is that guy's ability to write a readable web page.
He forgot what bullets are halfway through, or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396313</id>
	<title>State Of Linux Pretty Fucking Sorry After All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245408540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An anonymous moron writes:</p><p>"There have been past claims by CmdrTaco and others that development on Linux is a clusterfuck, particularly with regards to conformance to published specifications and actually producing a finished product rather than the typical half-finished, cobbled together with duct tape, untested piece of slag typically found on SourgeForge. However today, the author of the popular 'The Sorry State of Linux' has posted a follow up showing CmdrTaco's claims to be dead on, as well as being a good update on where OSS and AC are holding today, and why sending your boss a photo of goatse isn't a good idea."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous moron writes : " There have been past claims by CmdrTaco and others that development on Linux is a clusterfuck , particularly with regards to conformance to published specifications and actually producing a finished product rather than the typical half-finished , cobbled together with duct tape , untested piece of slag typically found on SourgeForge .
However today , the author of the popular 'The Sorry State of Linux ' has posted a follow up showing CmdrTaco 's claims to be dead on , as well as being a good update on where OSS and AC are holding today , and why sending your boss a photo of goatse is n't a good idea .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous moron writes:"There have been past claims by CmdrTaco and others that development on Linux is a clusterfuck, particularly with regards to conformance to published specifications and actually producing a finished product rather than the typical half-finished, cobbled together with duct tape, untested piece of slag typically found on SourgeForge.
However today, the author of the popular 'The Sorry State of Linux' has posted a follow up showing CmdrTaco's claims to be dead on, as well as being a good update on where OSS and AC are holding today, and why sending your boss a photo of goatse isn't a good idea.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397217</id>
	<title>Graphs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm definitely not an authority on either Linux or Windows audio, but I see something wrong with this statement:</p><blockquote><div><p>Graphs like these are very misleading. OpenAL, SDL, libao, GStreamer, NAS, Allegro, and more all exist on Windows too. I don't see anyone complaining there.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png" title="adobe.com">http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png</a> [adobe.com]<br><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\_vLES3KKBdaM/Sjsptq1kkCI/AAAAAAAAAGU/yITp1qKuHOU/s1600-h/windowsaudio.png" title="blogspot.com">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\_vLES3KKBdaM/Sjsptq1kkCI/AAAAAAAAAGU/yITp1qKuHOU/s1600-h/windowsaudio.png</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>Looking at both graphs, there's a striking difference: I don't see any loops in the Windows one (though, not being complete, there could be some). I don't see any major problems with library diversity, but the fact that there is no apparent hierarchy <i>does</i> confuse me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm definitely not an authority on either Linux or Windows audio , but I see something wrong with this statement : Graphs like these are very misleading .
OpenAL , SDL , libao , GStreamer , NAS , Allegro , and more all exist on Windows too .
I do n't see anyone complaining there.http : //blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png [ adobe.com ] http : //4.bp.blogspot.com/ \ _vLES3KKBdaM/Sjsptq1kkCI/AAAAAAAAAGU/yITp1qKuHOU/s1600-h/windowsaudio.png [ blogspot.com ] Looking at both graphs , there 's a striking difference : I do n't see any loops in the Windows one ( though , not being complete , there could be some ) .
I do n't see any major problems with library diversity , but the fact that there is no apparent hierarchy does confuse me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm definitely not an authority on either Linux or Windows audio, but I see something wrong with this statement:Graphs like these are very misleading.
OpenAL, SDL, libao, GStreamer, NAS, Allegro, and more all exist on Windows too.
I don't see anyone complaining there.http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png [adobe.com]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\_vLES3KKBdaM/Sjsptq1kkCI/AAAAAAAAAGU/yITp1qKuHOU/s1600-h/windowsaudio.png [blogspot.com]Looking at both graphs, there's a striking difference: I don't see any loops in the Windows one (though, not being complete, there could be some).
I don't see any major problems with library diversity, but the fact that there is no apparent hierarchy does confuse me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400473</id>
	<title>Re:So, when do we go ALSA - OSSv4?</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1245495480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we switch to OSSv4, people will start whining because we will have three sound systems instead of two. A gift for all Linux FUD spreaders. Drivers quality will not improve in the switch from ALSA to OSS (why should it?) so people will keep complaining about cracks and pops and out-of-the-box hardware support, and new bugs will inevitably crawl in during the process of converting existing drivers from ALSA to OSS.<br>
Of course, developers will have to support ALSA for a long time (dropping ALSA altogether would break nearly ALL the current linux applications, not just flash player) so the support burden for distributions maintainers would become even heavier.<br>
All of this - because ALSA does not match the pipe dream about sound systems of TFA writer. In the end, the features offered to the end user by a OSSv4 stack  would be less than those provided by a working ALSA + PulseAudio stack, as even the writer itself states (about hybernation support).<br>
Not to mention the fact that nowadays many applications will make use of high level libraries that hide the details of the sound system from them, so they couldn&rsquo;t care less about ALSA or OSS.<br>
So no, thank you! Please report bugs, do complain as loud as you can, but yet another fork is the last thing we need now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we switch to OSSv4 , people will start whining because we will have three sound systems instead of two .
A gift for all Linux FUD spreaders .
Drivers quality will not improve in the switch from ALSA to OSS ( why should it ?
) so people will keep complaining about cracks and pops and out-of-the-box hardware support , and new bugs will inevitably crawl in during the process of converting existing drivers from ALSA to OSS .
Of course , developers will have to support ALSA for a long time ( dropping ALSA altogether would break nearly ALL the current linux applications , not just flash player ) so the support burden for distributions maintainers would become even heavier .
All of this - because ALSA does not match the pipe dream about sound systems of TFA writer .
In the end , the features offered to the end user by a OSSv4 stack would be less than those provided by a working ALSA + PulseAudio stack , as even the writer itself states ( about hybernation support ) .
Not to mention the fact that nowadays many applications will make use of high level libraries that hide the details of the sound system from them , so they couldn    t care less about ALSA or OSS .
So no , thank you !
Please report bugs , do complain as loud as you can , but yet another fork is the last thing we need now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we switch to OSSv4, people will start whining because we will have three sound systems instead of two.
A gift for all Linux FUD spreaders.
Drivers quality will not improve in the switch from ALSA to OSS (why should it?
) so people will keep complaining about cracks and pops and out-of-the-box hardware support, and new bugs will inevitably crawl in during the process of converting existing drivers from ALSA to OSS.
Of course, developers will have to support ALSA for a long time (dropping ALSA altogether would break nearly ALL the current linux applications, not just flash player) so the support burden for distributions maintainers would become even heavier.
All of this - because ALSA does not match the pipe dream about sound systems of TFA writer.
In the end, the features offered to the end user by a OSSv4 stack  would be less than those provided by a working ALSA + PulseAudio stack, as even the writer itself states (about hybernation support).
Not to mention the fact that nowadays many applications will make use of high level libraries that hide the details of the sound system from them, so they couldn’t care less about ALSA or OSS.
So no, thank you!
Please report bugs, do complain as loud as you can, but yet another fork is the last thing we need now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399797</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with." Yea I hear ya I also like sea turtles but I would like their lack of opposable thumbs and non ability to walk upright at 35mph dealt with. Don't ask me how that'd be much help to a sea critter though!</p><p>What I'm getting at is that its environment and use will always limit it to such. Pulseaudio is a cliche specific environment not suitable towards most things in regards to fully adapted performance gains. In otherwords you can peddle all you want but a motorcycle still wins in regards to performance no matter how much you tweak your little tricycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with .
" Yea I hear ya I also like sea turtles but I would like their lack of opposable thumbs and non ability to walk upright at 35mph dealt with .
Do n't ask me how that 'd be much help to a sea critter though ! What I 'm getting at is that its environment and use will always limit it to such .
Pulseaudio is a cliche specific environment not suitable towards most things in regards to fully adapted performance gains .
In otherwords you can peddle all you want but a motorcycle still wins in regards to performance no matter how much you tweak your little tricycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with.
" Yea I hear ya I also like sea turtles but I would like their lack of opposable thumbs and non ability to walk upright at 35mph dealt with.
Don't ask me how that'd be much help to a sea critter though!What I'm getting at is that its environment and use will always limit it to such.
Pulseaudio is a cliche specific environment not suitable towards most things in regards to fully adapted performance gains.
In otherwords you can peddle all you want but a motorcycle still wins in regards to performance no matter how much you tweak your little tricycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400387</id>
	<title>Re:multiple sound cards and braindead applications</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1245494340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One interesting change here that Win7 has done is that there are now two default sound devices (for both recording and playback): the usual "Default" and the "Communications" device. These certainly can be the same, but they also allow things like making it so your media player (which would use the Default) goes out your main speakers, while your VoIP goes to a headset. Still, this requires A) the two defaults be configured, B) communication applicaitons identify themselves as such, and C) the audio drivers recognize different outputs (most Windows drivers treat analog headphones and analog speakers as the same device, and don't let you choose which to use - plugging in headphones turns off the speakers, and that's it). If you already have C, have bothered to do B, and your users are capable of A, then it seems that simply having something like Skype's sound configuration (where you can select the device to use for each of several different sound uses) makes a lot of sense. Try to keep the defaults reasonable, of course, but don't *force* us to use them.</p><p>An alternative is to have the audio system do per-application control of the Default. This is probably actually feasible, since Vista and up already support per-application volume control. It would simply be a matter of telling each application, when it wants the open the default audio device, to use a user-specified "default" for that application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting change here that Win7 has done is that there are now two default sound devices ( for both recording and playback ) : the usual " Default " and the " Communications " device .
These certainly can be the same , but they also allow things like making it so your media player ( which would use the Default ) goes out your main speakers , while your VoIP goes to a headset .
Still , this requires A ) the two defaults be configured , B ) communication applicaitons identify themselves as such , and C ) the audio drivers recognize different outputs ( most Windows drivers treat analog headphones and analog speakers as the same device , and do n't let you choose which to use - plugging in headphones turns off the speakers , and that 's it ) .
If you already have C , have bothered to do B , and your users are capable of A , then it seems that simply having something like Skype 's sound configuration ( where you can select the device to use for each of several different sound uses ) makes a lot of sense .
Try to keep the defaults reasonable , of course , but do n't * force * us to use them.An alternative is to have the audio system do per-application control of the Default .
This is probably actually feasible , since Vista and up already support per-application volume control .
It would simply be a matter of telling each application , when it wants the open the default audio device , to use a user-specified " default " for that application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting change here that Win7 has done is that there are now two default sound devices (for both recording and playback): the usual "Default" and the "Communications" device.
These certainly can be the same, but they also allow things like making it so your media player (which would use the Default) goes out your main speakers, while your VoIP goes to a headset.
Still, this requires A) the two defaults be configured, B) communication applicaitons identify themselves as such, and C) the audio drivers recognize different outputs (most Windows drivers treat analog headphones and analog speakers as the same device, and don't let you choose which to use - plugging in headphones turns off the speakers, and that's it).
If you already have C, have bothered to do B, and your users are capable of A, then it seems that simply having something like Skype's sound configuration (where you can select the device to use for each of several different sound uses) makes a lot of sense.
Try to keep the defaults reasonable, of course, but don't *force* us to use them.An alternative is to have the audio system do per-application control of the Default.
This is probably actually feasible, since Vista and up already support per-application volume control.
It would simply be a matter of telling each application, when it wants the open the default audio device, to use a user-specified "default" for that application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397129</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can have a whole passel of processes writing to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp simultaneously, because whenever a process attempts to open it, the OS spawns off a new copy</i></p><p>Good god, I want that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have a whole passel of processes writing to /dev/dsp simultaneously , because whenever a process attempts to open it , the OS spawns off a new copyGood god , I want that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have a whole passel of processes writing to /dev/dsp simultaneously, because whenever a process attempts to open it, the OS spawns off a new copyGood god, I want that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402933</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>hab136</author>
	<datestamp>1245522780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He says pulse sucks for games . Although he is exaggerating the latencies, I can believe it.<br>It is so, so for video (you can get occasional lack of sync)</p></div></blockquote><p>So for everything I'd actually want sound for it's broken, but for system beeps it's great, eh?</p><blockquote><div><p>It does audio very nicely - mixing works fine, you can play different streams to different cards (yes, I do that), you can play streams on remote servers, you can combine all local sound cards into a single virtual device etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>Cool, I can have broken audio go all over the place.</p><p>Audio and video problems are the main reasons why I gave up on Linux as a desktop in 2004 (ironically shortly before Ubuntu came out, which solved some of my other complaints).  I just got tired of my video breaking every few months during an upgrade, and sound working or not depending on the day and what apps I was running (and in which order I loaded them!).</p><p>Looks like the situation has really not changed.  Super-cool features like programmable stream outputs are useless if it doesn't play audio correctly in the first place.  Or more importantly, if the userbase can get it to play audio correctly.</p><blockquote><div><p>So the problem is not that we do not have good solutions. It is that we have different solutions with different strengths and it is not clear which should be the default. He thinks pulse should not be the default. I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why do we have to choose between broken in one way and broken in a different way? Windows and OS X's audio systems have mixing, low latency, and are reliable.  Why can't Linux's audio system, whatever it is?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He says pulse sucks for games .
Although he is exaggerating the latencies , I can believe it.It is so , so for video ( you can get occasional lack of sync ) So for everything I 'd actually want sound for it 's broken , but for system beeps it 's great , eh ? It does audio very nicely - mixing works fine , you can play different streams to different cards ( yes , I do that ) , you can play streams on remote servers , you can combine all local sound cards into a single virtual device etc.Cool , I can have broken audio go all over the place.Audio and video problems are the main reasons why I gave up on Linux as a desktop in 2004 ( ironically shortly before Ubuntu came out , which solved some of my other complaints ) .
I just got tired of my video breaking every few months during an upgrade , and sound working or not depending on the day and what apps I was running ( and in which order I loaded them !
) .Looks like the situation has really not changed .
Super-cool features like programmable stream outputs are useless if it does n't play audio correctly in the first place .
Or more importantly , if the userbase can get it to play audio correctly.So the problem is not that we do not have good solutions .
It is that we have different solutions with different strengths and it is not clear which should be the default .
He thinks pulse should not be the default .
I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with.Why do we have to choose between broken in one way and broken in a different way ?
Windows and OS X 's audio systems have mixing , low latency , and are reliable .
Why ca n't Linux 's audio system , whatever it is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He says pulse sucks for games .
Although he is exaggerating the latencies, I can believe it.It is so, so for video (you can get occasional lack of sync)So for everything I'd actually want sound for it's broken, but for system beeps it's great, eh?It does audio very nicely - mixing works fine, you can play different streams to different cards (yes, I do that), you can play streams on remote servers, you can combine all local sound cards into a single virtual device etc.Cool, I can have broken audio go all over the place.Audio and video problems are the main reasons why I gave up on Linux as a desktop in 2004 (ironically shortly before Ubuntu came out, which solved some of my other complaints).
I just got tired of my video breaking every few months during an upgrade, and sound working or not depending on the day and what apps I was running (and in which order I loaded them!
).Looks like the situation has really not changed.
Super-cool features like programmable stream outputs are useless if it doesn't play audio correctly in the first place.
Or more importantly, if the userbase can get it to play audio correctly.So the problem is not that we do not have good solutions.
It is that we have different solutions with different strengths and it is not clear which should be the default.
He thinks pulse should not be the default.
I like pulse although I would like the latency and reliabliity issues dealt with.Why do we have to choose between broken in one way and broken in a different way?
Windows and OS X's audio systems have mixing, low latency, and are reliable.
Why can't Linux's audio system, whatever it is?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397783</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>AigariusDebian</author>
	<datestamp>1245417720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cann't detect any latency by ear, so it is 100 ms for sure. There were bugs in ALSA earlier that caused PA to have significant latency, but with latest kernel, ALSA and PA, the latencies *should* be in single digit miliseconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can n't detect any latency by ear , so it is 100 ms for sure .
There were bugs in ALSA earlier that caused PA to have significant latency , but with latest kernel , ALSA and PA , the latencies * should * be in single digit miliseconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cann't detect any latency by ear, so it is 100 ms for sure.
There were bugs in ALSA earlier that caused PA to have significant latency, but with latest kernel, ALSA and PA, the latencies *should* be in single digit miliseconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398929</id>
	<title>wow, that was relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245429240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we are talking about getting one sound card to work, at all... im trying to figure out what possible relevance your complaint could have to this entire conversation. you might as well just blurt out 'i dont like navel oranges, only valencia'.</p><p>this is the problem... people cannot focus on what is important.. ie, getting basic sound to work. instead they go off on these tangents of irrelevant nonsense and here we are, 10 years later... still no basic sound support.</p><p>reminds me of the afghanistan war. your name isn't Rumsfeld is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we are talking about getting one sound card to work , at all... im trying to figure out what possible relevance your complaint could have to this entire conversation .
you might as well just blurt out 'i dont like navel oranges , only valencia'.this is the problem... people can not focus on what is important.. ie , getting basic sound to work .
instead they go off on these tangents of irrelevant nonsense and here we are , 10 years later... still no basic sound support.reminds me of the afghanistan war .
your name is n't Rumsfeld is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we are talking about getting one sound card to work, at all... im trying to figure out what possible relevance your complaint could have to this entire conversation.
you might as well just blurt out 'i dont like navel oranges, only valencia'.this is the problem... people cannot focus on what is important.. ie, getting basic sound to work.
instead they go off on these tangents of irrelevant nonsense and here we are, 10 years later... still no basic sound support.reminds me of the afghanistan war.
your name isn't Rumsfeld is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396793</id>
	<title>Fud? Er, no...</title>
	<author>mad.frog</author>
	<datestamp>1245410880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both the Adobe article and the "Sorry State Of Sound" article date from May 2007. The new article reinforces that the state *was* sorry then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both the Adobe article and the " Sorry State Of Sound " article date from May 2007 .
The new article reinforces that the state * was * sorry then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both the Adobe article and the "Sorry State Of Sound" article date from May 2007.
The new article reinforces that the state *was* sorry then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895</id>
	<title>A sure road to success .....</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1245411360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... when application developers or users express concern about a problem in your OS is to attack them, call them liars and FUD rakers, accuse them of being stooges for Microsoft or whatever.</p><p>I'm pretty sure the engineer who develops the Flash Linux player is probably on your side, and he was expressing a legitimate concern about a problem with Linux. As best I remember Adobe hired him out of the open source, Linux world. It would probably be more productive to listen to his concerns, and see if maybe, just maybe, there is a problem with audio on Linux.  Having tried to write simple audio apps myself using OSS and ALSA I can assure you they have issues, OSS having no mixer at all was a nightmare to make play with more than one audio stream or more than one app at a time, that's why ESD, arts and pulse were created to hide these mixer deficiencies.</p><p>ALSA is a ridiculously overdone, convoluted audio API which makes it very painful for audio driver writers and application developers alike.  It simply has too many knobs that can be tweaked and turned most of which never get implemented properly by driver writers and can't be trusted.</p><p>The simple fact that there must be a dozen different audio API's on Linux many of which exist solely to hide applications and users from the deficiencies in OSS and ALSA tells you something right there.</p><p>Rather than attacking this guy maybe you should have the empathy for the guy, he has to deploy an application that is used by probably millions of Linux users, most of whom are ticked off its not open source in the first place and then when it doesn't work perfectly they scream bloody murder.  He has to try to make audio work in the face of the fact there are countless barely working or at least buggy ALSA drivers in the world, and there must be about a HUNDRED different ways to configure audio when you count OSS, ALSA, gstreamer, pulse, esd, arts, jack, OpenAL, and a MILLION different configurations when you count all the obscure options you can or in some cases HAVE to set on audio drivers.</p><p>As an end user I've suffered through painful, hard to fix audio bugs, in just about every PC I've owned over the last ten years due to audio driver bugs.   Sure I could sift through "supported" hardware lists and try to find that rare new PC or laptop where everything is guaranteed to work on Linux, but I would actually prefer to just buy the hardware I want at the price I want.  Of course in all fairness to the Linux developer community it is a total bitch to get working drivers on all the PC hardware being put out especially when the vast majority of hardware developers either just don't support Linux, support Linux badly, or actively obstruct Linux support.</p><p>You all seriously need to realize that if you want broader acceptance of your wonderful operating system:</p><p>A. You need applications and application developers to develop for your system, and not attack them if they point out problems deploying apps on your system.  In a perfect world every app would be open source, but there may be some apps which aren't Linux would be better off having as closed source than not having at all.</p><p>B. it will have to actually work for ordinary people who aren't going to spend days/weeks/years fiddling with things to try to make it work right.</p><p>One of the beauties of the Mac is the hardware is tightly controlled.  You may view that as confining and depriving you of your freedom, but it also helps insure the damn thing works out of the box, and most of the applications on it work pretty damn well.  After years of fighting nagging bugs on Linux I decided it was in my own best interest to just switch to a Mac for my desktop system and I use my Linux box solely to develop code on.  Linux on the desktop is a lot better than it was but unfortunately its just not a very good desktop experience by comparison.</p><p>Unless there is a major attitude adjustment in the Linux community that is unlikely to change.  Either:</p><p>A. Be content that Linux is a niche OS for hardcore fans a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... when application developers or users express concern about a problem in your OS is to attack them , call them liars and FUD rakers , accuse them of being stooges for Microsoft or whatever.I 'm pretty sure the engineer who develops the Flash Linux player is probably on your side , and he was expressing a legitimate concern about a problem with Linux .
As best I remember Adobe hired him out of the open source , Linux world .
It would probably be more productive to listen to his concerns , and see if maybe , just maybe , there is a problem with audio on Linux .
Having tried to write simple audio apps myself using OSS and ALSA I can assure you they have issues , OSS having no mixer at all was a nightmare to make play with more than one audio stream or more than one app at a time , that 's why ESD , arts and pulse were created to hide these mixer deficiencies.ALSA is a ridiculously overdone , convoluted audio API which makes it very painful for audio driver writers and application developers alike .
It simply has too many knobs that can be tweaked and turned most of which never get implemented properly by driver writers and ca n't be trusted.The simple fact that there must be a dozen different audio API 's on Linux many of which exist solely to hide applications and users from the deficiencies in OSS and ALSA tells you something right there.Rather than attacking this guy maybe you should have the empathy for the guy , he has to deploy an application that is used by probably millions of Linux users , most of whom are ticked off its not open source in the first place and then when it does n't work perfectly they scream bloody murder .
He has to try to make audio work in the face of the fact there are countless barely working or at least buggy ALSA drivers in the world , and there must be about a HUNDRED different ways to configure audio when you count OSS , ALSA , gstreamer , pulse , esd , arts , jack , OpenAL , and a MILLION different configurations when you count all the obscure options you can or in some cases HAVE to set on audio drivers.As an end user I 've suffered through painful , hard to fix audio bugs , in just about every PC I 've owned over the last ten years due to audio driver bugs .
Sure I could sift through " supported " hardware lists and try to find that rare new PC or laptop where everything is guaranteed to work on Linux , but I would actually prefer to just buy the hardware I want at the price I want .
Of course in all fairness to the Linux developer community it is a total bitch to get working drivers on all the PC hardware being put out especially when the vast majority of hardware developers either just do n't support Linux , support Linux badly , or actively obstruct Linux support.You all seriously need to realize that if you want broader acceptance of your wonderful operating system : A. You need applications and application developers to develop for your system , and not attack them if they point out problems deploying apps on your system .
In a perfect world every app would be open source , but there may be some apps which are n't Linux would be better off having as closed source than not having at all.B .
it will have to actually work for ordinary people who are n't going to spend days/weeks/years fiddling with things to try to make it work right.One of the beauties of the Mac is the hardware is tightly controlled .
You may view that as confining and depriving you of your freedom , but it also helps insure the damn thing works out of the box , and most of the applications on it work pretty damn well .
After years of fighting nagging bugs on Linux I decided it was in my own best interest to just switch to a Mac for my desktop system and I use my Linux box solely to develop code on .
Linux on the desktop is a lot better than it was but unfortunately its just not a very good desktop experience by comparison.Unless there is a major attitude adjustment in the Linux community that is unlikely to change .
Either : A. Be content that Linux is a niche OS for hardcore fans a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... when application developers or users express concern about a problem in your OS is to attack them, call them liars and FUD rakers, accuse them of being stooges for Microsoft or whatever.I'm pretty sure the engineer who develops the Flash Linux player is probably on your side, and he was expressing a legitimate concern about a problem with Linux.
As best I remember Adobe hired him out of the open source, Linux world.
It would probably be more productive to listen to his concerns, and see if maybe, just maybe, there is a problem with audio on Linux.
Having tried to write simple audio apps myself using OSS and ALSA I can assure you they have issues, OSS having no mixer at all was a nightmare to make play with more than one audio stream or more than one app at a time, that's why ESD, arts and pulse were created to hide these mixer deficiencies.ALSA is a ridiculously overdone, convoluted audio API which makes it very painful for audio driver writers and application developers alike.
It simply has too many knobs that can be tweaked and turned most of which never get implemented properly by driver writers and can't be trusted.The simple fact that there must be a dozen different audio API's on Linux many of which exist solely to hide applications and users from the deficiencies in OSS and ALSA tells you something right there.Rather than attacking this guy maybe you should have the empathy for the guy, he has to deploy an application that is used by probably millions of Linux users, most of whom are ticked off its not open source in the first place and then when it doesn't work perfectly they scream bloody murder.
He has to try to make audio work in the face of the fact there are countless barely working or at least buggy ALSA drivers in the world, and there must be about a HUNDRED different ways to configure audio when you count OSS, ALSA, gstreamer, pulse, esd, arts, jack, OpenAL, and a MILLION different configurations when you count all the obscure options you can or in some cases HAVE to set on audio drivers.As an end user I've suffered through painful, hard to fix audio bugs, in just about every PC I've owned over the last ten years due to audio driver bugs.
Sure I could sift through "supported" hardware lists and try to find that rare new PC or laptop where everything is guaranteed to work on Linux, but I would actually prefer to just buy the hardware I want at the price I want.
Of course in all fairness to the Linux developer community it is a total bitch to get working drivers on all the PC hardware being put out especially when the vast majority of hardware developers either just don't support Linux, support Linux badly, or actively obstruct Linux support.You all seriously need to realize that if you want broader acceptance of your wonderful operating system:A. You need applications and application developers to develop for your system, and not attack them if they point out problems deploying apps on your system.
In a perfect world every app would be open source, but there may be some apps which aren't Linux would be better off having as closed source than not having at all.B.
it will have to actually work for ordinary people who aren't going to spend days/weeks/years fiddling with things to try to make it work right.One of the beauties of the Mac is the hardware is tightly controlled.
You may view that as confining and depriving you of your freedom, but it also helps insure the damn thing works out of the box, and most of the applications on it work pretty damn well.
After years of fighting nagging bugs on Linux I decided it was in my own best interest to just switch to a Mac for my desktop system and I use my Linux box solely to develop code on.
Linux on the desktop is a lot better than it was but unfortunately its just not a very good desktop experience by comparison.Unless there is a major attitude adjustment in the Linux community that is unlikely to change.
Either:A. Be content that Linux is a niche OS for hardcore fans a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401725</id>
	<title>Re:A sure road to success .....</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1245512100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying here is that you not only did not read the article, you didn't even read the summary or any of the comments. If I had modpoints I'd mod you -1 Jerkoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying here is that you not only did not read the article , you did n't even read the summary or any of the comments .
If I had modpoints I 'd mod you -1 Jerkoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying here is that you not only did not read the article, you didn't even read the summary or any of the comments.
If I had modpoints I'd mod you -1 Jerkoff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398747</id>
	<title>if Alsa sucks..</title>
	<author>ShawnX</author>
	<datestamp>1245426900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are we going to replace with? I want to hear what Linus and others have to say. Maybe it's time to really look at audio in Linux. We've had lots of framework overhauls in Linux. Alsa2 anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are we going to replace with ?
I want to hear what Linus and others have to say .
Maybe it 's time to really look at audio in Linux .
We 've had lots of framework overhauls in Linux .
Alsa2 anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are we going to replace with?
I want to hear what Linus and others have to say.
Maybe it's time to really look at audio in Linux.
We've had lots of framework overhauls in Linux.
Alsa2 anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</id>
	<title>What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Linux audio sucks.  If nothing else, we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks, and none of them are definitively better than the others.  So, my question: what exactly is it that we're trying to achieve?  What's the end goal of creating newer APIs instead of perfecting the old ones, such as moving from OSS to ALSA to whatever they roll out this month?</p><p>For comparison, FreeBSD uses multi-channel OSS.  You can have a whole passel of processes writing to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp simultaneously, because whenever a process attempts to open it, the OS spawns off a new copy.  It Just Works.  I'm a little amazed that my FreeBSD server's sound handling is so much better than my Linux desktop's and requires approximate zero client configuration.  So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Linux audio sucks .
If nothing else , we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks , and none of them are definitively better than the others .
So , my question : what exactly is it that we 're trying to achieve ?
What 's the end goal of creating newer APIs instead of perfecting the old ones , such as moving from OSS to ALSA to whatever they roll out this month ? For comparison , FreeBSD uses multi-channel OSS .
You can have a whole passel of processes writing to /dev/dsp simultaneously , because whenever a process attempts to open it , the OS spawns off a new copy .
It Just Works .
I 'm a little amazed that my FreeBSD server 's sound handling is so much better than my Linux desktop 's and requires approximate zero client configuration .
So again , what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old " obsolete " OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Linux audio sucks.
If nothing else, we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks, and none of them are definitively better than the others.
So, my question: what exactly is it that we're trying to achieve?
What's the end goal of creating newer APIs instead of perfecting the old ones, such as moving from OSS to ALSA to whatever they roll out this month?For comparison, FreeBSD uses multi-channel OSS.
You can have a whole passel of processes writing to /dev/dsp simultaneously, because whenever a process attempts to open it, the OS spawns off a new copy.
It Just Works.
I'm a little amazed that my FreeBSD server's sound handling is so much better than my Linux desktop's and requires approximate zero client configuration.
So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28415509</id>
	<title>Re:ALSA is rouge and OSS is violet?</title>
	<author>ReedYoung</author>
	<datestamp>1245596520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OSS should get suspend support and anything else it lacks in comparison to ALSA even if insignificant. Here's a hint, why doesn't Ubuntu hire the OSS author and get it more friendly in these last few cases for the end user?</p></div><p>It doesn't look to me like he is saying "we should be using OSS because the author doesn't use suspend on his computer," he's saying OSSv4 is better audio software, and should be made to work with features like suspend because OSS has the best potential to be a general solution for audio engineers, video gamers and casual users who just want to listen to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flac audio while we code, and be able to catch up on the day's news afterwards (Flash/swfdec/etc).  ALSA does fine for me, in the latter use case, but if I find OSS automagically installed and working as well or better after the next time I apt-get dist-upgrade, that's okay.  And if that solves problems for other users, why not?  Just because ALSA is good enough for me doesn't mean I object to something being adopted that's better for others, and no worse for me.  I haven't used PulseAudio myself, but it looks like his case is not that none of its features have merit but that it is a performance reducer, so its good features would be more useful in conjunction with a more efficient <b>stack</b>, which he obviously wants to be based on OSSv4.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Problems should be fixed directly, not in a roundabout matter (sic) as is done with PulseAudio, that garbage needs to go. If users need remote sound (and few do), one should just be easily able to map<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp over NFS, and output everything to OSS that way, achieving network transparency on the file level as UNIX was designed for (everything is a file), instead of all these non UNIX hacks in place today in regards to sound.</p></div><p>I do know enough about Linux programming to know that makes good sense.  And he gives credit to PulseAudio where he feels credit is due, as a high quality mixer.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As you can see, ALSA's API can also output to PulseAudio, meaning programs written using ALSA's API can output to PulseAudio and use PulseAudio's higher quality sound mixer seamlessly without requiring the modification of old programs. PulseAudio is also able to send sound to another PulseAudio server on the network to output sound remotely. PulseAudio's <b>stack</b> is something like this: [very complex, low-performance-looking diagram]</p></div><p>It seemed more like a balanced analysis than a rant to me, especially if the things he says about sound quality and latency are true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS should get suspend support and anything else it lacks in comparison to ALSA even if insignificant .
Here 's a hint , why does n't Ubuntu hire the OSS author and get it more friendly in these last few cases for the end user ? It does n't look to me like he is saying " we should be using OSS because the author does n't use suspend on his computer , " he 's saying OSSv4 is better audio software , and should be made to work with features like suspend because OSS has the best potential to be a general solution for audio engineers , video gamers and casual users who just want to listen to .flac audio while we code , and be able to catch up on the day 's news afterwards ( Flash/swfdec/etc ) .
ALSA does fine for me , in the latter use case , but if I find OSS automagically installed and working as well or better after the next time I apt-get dist-upgrade , that 's okay .
And if that solves problems for other users , why not ?
Just because ALSA is good enough for me does n't mean I object to something being adopted that 's better for others , and no worse for me .
I have n't used PulseAudio myself , but it looks like his case is not that none of its features have merit but that it is a performance reducer , so its good features would be more useful in conjunction with a more efficient stack , which he obviously wants to be based on OSSv4.Problems should be fixed directly , not in a roundabout matter ( sic ) as is done with PulseAudio , that garbage needs to go .
If users need remote sound ( and few do ) , one should just be easily able to map /dev/dsp over NFS , and output everything to OSS that way , achieving network transparency on the file level as UNIX was designed for ( everything is a file ) , instead of all these non UNIX hacks in place today in regards to sound.I do know enough about Linux programming to know that makes good sense .
And he gives credit to PulseAudio where he feels credit is due , as a high quality mixer.As you can see , ALSA 's API can also output to PulseAudio , meaning programs written using ALSA 's API can output to PulseAudio and use PulseAudio 's higher quality sound mixer seamlessly without requiring the modification of old programs .
PulseAudio is also able to send sound to another PulseAudio server on the network to output sound remotely .
PulseAudio 's stack is something like this : [ very complex , low-performance-looking diagram ] It seemed more like a balanced analysis than a rant to me , especially if the things he says about sound quality and latency are true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS should get suspend support and anything else it lacks in comparison to ALSA even if insignificant.
Here's a hint, why doesn't Ubuntu hire the OSS author and get it more friendly in these last few cases for the end user?It doesn't look to me like he is saying "we should be using OSS because the author doesn't use suspend on his computer," he's saying OSSv4 is better audio software, and should be made to work with features like suspend because OSS has the best potential to be a general solution for audio engineers, video gamers and casual users who just want to listen to .flac audio while we code, and be able to catch up on the day's news afterwards (Flash/swfdec/etc).
ALSA does fine for me, in the latter use case, but if I find OSS automagically installed and working as well or better after the next time I apt-get dist-upgrade, that's okay.
And if that solves problems for other users, why not?
Just because ALSA is good enough for me doesn't mean I object to something being adopted that's better for others, and no worse for me.
I haven't used PulseAudio myself, but it looks like his case is not that none of its features have merit but that it is a performance reducer, so its good features would be more useful in conjunction with a more efficient stack, which he obviously wants to be based on OSSv4.Problems should be fixed directly, not in a roundabout matter (sic) as is done with PulseAudio, that garbage needs to go.
If users need remote sound (and few do), one should just be easily able to map /dev/dsp over NFS, and output everything to OSS that way, achieving network transparency on the file level as UNIX was designed for (everything is a file), instead of all these non UNIX hacks in place today in regards to sound.I do know enough about Linux programming to know that makes good sense.
And he gives credit to PulseAudio where he feels credit is due, as a high quality mixer.As you can see, ALSA's API can also output to PulseAudio, meaning programs written using ALSA's API can output to PulseAudio and use PulseAudio's higher quality sound mixer seamlessly without requiring the modification of old programs.
PulseAudio is also able to send sound to another PulseAudio server on the network to output sound remotely.
PulseAudio's stack is something like this: [very complex, low-performance-looking diagram]It seemed more like a balanced analysis than a rant to me, especially if the things he says about sound quality and latency are true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397935</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>uhmmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1245419040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off by one.  Linux deprecated OSS3, and OSS4 is now opensource.</p><p>And not only does it work better (in my admittedly little experience with it), it's also more in keeping with the UNIX philosophy of treating devices just like any other file.  Sure, with ALSA you do have device files, but you pretty much have to use alsalib to use them AFAIK.  With OSS, you get to use the standard UNIX file APIs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off by one .
Linux deprecated OSS3 , and OSS4 is now opensource.And not only does it work better ( in my admittedly little experience with it ) , it 's also more in keeping with the UNIX philosophy of treating devices just like any other file .
Sure , with ALSA you do have device files , but you pretty much have to use alsalib to use them AFAIK .
With OSS , you get to use the standard UNIX file APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off by one.
Linux deprecated OSS3, and OSS4 is now opensource.And not only does it work better (in my admittedly little experience with it), it's also more in keeping with the UNIX philosophy of treating devices just like any other file.
Sure, with ALSA you do have device files, but you pretty much have to use alsalib to use them AFAIK.
With OSS, you get to use the standard UNIX file APIs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396705</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry - It's still pretty "sorry"...</title>
	<author>sdsucks</author>
	<datestamp>1245410340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aww flamebait? Thats the best you could do?

Must be a pulse audio developer.

Fact is, it sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aww flamebait ?
Thats the best you could do ?
Must be a pulse audio developer .
Fact is , it sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aww flamebait?
Thats the best you could do?
Must be a pulse audio developer.
Fact is, it sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398111</id>
	<title>Re:it's all relative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest issue with Linux drivers in general seems to be hardware vendors fearful their crap will be visible. The community will write the drivers for them, if they would give specs. The problem is always proprietary hardware that has its warts hidden with proprietary drivers. If, vendors must hide everything, then they need to create an abstraction layer to hide the guts, but allow all OSes easy implementation of said hardware. Too much time is spent reverse engineering hardware in order to get any driver at all for open source OSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue with Linux drivers in general seems to be hardware vendors fearful their crap will be visible .
The community will write the drivers for them , if they would give specs .
The problem is always proprietary hardware that has its warts hidden with proprietary drivers .
If , vendors must hide everything , then they need to create an abstraction layer to hide the guts , but allow all OSes easy implementation of said hardware .
Too much time is spent reverse engineering hardware in order to get any driver at all for open source OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue with Linux drivers in general seems to be hardware vendors fearful their crap will be visible.
The community will write the drivers for them, if they would give specs.
The problem is always proprietary hardware that has its warts hidden with proprietary drivers.
If, vendors must hide everything, then they need to create an abstraction layer to hide the guts, but allow all OSes easy implementation of said hardware.
Too much time is spent reverse engineering hardware in order to get any driver at all for open source OSes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397495</id>
	<title>Re:PulseAudio</title>
	<author>caluml</author>
	<datestamp>1245415620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt># dpkg --purge pulseaudio<br>dpkg: dependency problems prevent removal of pulseaudio:<br> ubuntu-desktop depends on pulseaudio.<br>....</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Grr.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># dpkg --purge pulseaudiodpkg : dependency problems prevent removal of pulseaudio : ubuntu-desktop depends on pulseaudio..... Grr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> # dpkg --purge pulseaudiodpkg: dependency problems prevent removal of pulseaudio: ubuntu-desktop depends on pulseaudio..... Grr.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397039</id>
	<title>Isn't he saying it's still in a sorry state?</title>
	<author>Timmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1245412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading the (very interesting) article, it sounds like he's still saying it is in a sorry state. Summary for those lazy people.</p><p>OSS3 was a bit crap and removed from the kernel in favour of ALSA<br>ALSA is also a bit crap because it does mixing in a stupid place, and sometimes not at all. Also it has an unnecessarily complicated API.<br>OSS4 was written, which is much better than ALSA - simpler API, lower latency, better mixing - but isn't included in the mainline kernel.<br>PulseAudio is a horrible horrible ugly evil stupid idiotic hack. Did they never use Arts?!?</p><p>So as it stands we have ALSA which is sub-par, being driven by PulseAudio which seems to do its best to cock things up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading the ( very interesting ) article , it sounds like he 's still saying it is in a sorry state .
Summary for those lazy people.OSS3 was a bit crap and removed from the kernel in favour of ALSAALSA is also a bit crap because it does mixing in a stupid place , and sometimes not at all .
Also it has an unnecessarily complicated API.OSS4 was written , which is much better than ALSA - simpler API , lower latency , better mixing - but is n't included in the mainline kernel.PulseAudio is a horrible horrible ugly evil stupid idiotic hack .
Did they never use Arts ? !
? So as it stands we have ALSA which is sub-par , being driven by PulseAudio which seems to do its best to cock things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading the (very interesting) article, it sounds like he's still saying it is in a sorry state.
Summary for those lazy people.OSS3 was a bit crap and removed from the kernel in favour of ALSAALSA is also a bit crap because it does mixing in a stupid place, and sometimes not at all.
Also it has an unnecessarily complicated API.OSS4 was written, which is much better than ALSA - simpler API, lower latency, better mixing - but isn't included in the mainline kernel.PulseAudio is a horrible horrible ugly evil stupid idiotic hack.
Did they never use Arts?!
?So as it stands we have ALSA which is sub-par, being driven by PulseAudio which seems to do its best to cock things up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396671</id>
	<title>Linux sound may seem complex but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any MSWindows sound is an "audiophile torture device". In a bar after a business meeting, we were constantly telling the bartender to "Turn it down". It is almost certain he recognized us as being part of the music business and simply wanted us to hear his music. MS Windows -- No thanks.</p><p>ALSA isn't that bad and I thought OSS was open-source, at least it is to me. To emulate ALSA just requires a few symlinks in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev. In BSD if, say, pulse fails, no problem: There is another system to take over. I take my music very seriously and own a pair of Genelec 1030's as my "PC sound system" to prove it. A EUR 5,-- C-Media USB sound chip in a circuit of my own design blows away any commercial sound card. Gamers may like "Realtek" but they are simply good at what they are designed to do: Make noises!</p><p>Linux sound is OK, but I stick to BSD because it offers the best "multimedia" performance available today. Of course I use a hand-compiled MPlayer for the video stuff. Doesn't everybody use libmad.so for mpeg sound? Madplayer is a simple demo for the library and nothing beats it for mp3. Today FLAC is the smart choice and you can encode with virtually just the libs. I like flac123, but pulse sure doesn't.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) I've ported flac123 to Linux and it works fine.</p><p>BillSF<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any MSWindows sound is an " audiophile torture device " .
In a bar after a business meeting , we were constantly telling the bartender to " Turn it down " .
It is almost certain he recognized us as being part of the music business and simply wanted us to hear his music .
MS Windows -- No thanks.ALSA is n't that bad and I thought OSS was open-source , at least it is to me .
To emulate ALSA just requires a few symlinks in /dev .
In BSD if , say , pulse fails , no problem : There is another system to take over .
I take my music very seriously and own a pair of Genelec 1030 's as my " PC sound system " to prove it .
A EUR 5,-- C-Media USB sound chip in a circuit of my own design blows away any commercial sound card .
Gamers may like " Realtek " but they are simply good at what they are designed to do : Make noises ! Linux sound is OK , but I stick to BSD because it offers the best " multimedia " performance available today .
Of course I use a hand-compiled MPlayer for the video stuff .
Does n't everybody use libmad.so for mpeg sound ?
Madplayer is a simple demo for the library and nothing beats it for mp3 .
Today FLAC is the smart choice and you can encode with virtually just the libs .
I like flac123 , but pulse sure does n't .
; ) I 've ported flac123 to Linux and it works fine.BillSF            </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any MSWindows sound is an "audiophile torture device".
In a bar after a business meeting, we were constantly telling the bartender to "Turn it down".
It is almost certain he recognized us as being part of the music business and simply wanted us to hear his music.
MS Windows -- No thanks.ALSA isn't that bad and I thought OSS was open-source, at least it is to me.
To emulate ALSA just requires a few symlinks in /dev.
In BSD if, say, pulse fails, no problem: There is another system to take over.
I take my music very seriously and own a pair of Genelec 1030's as my "PC sound system" to prove it.
A EUR 5,-- C-Media USB sound chip in a circuit of my own design blows away any commercial sound card.
Gamers may like "Realtek" but they are simply good at what they are designed to do: Make noises!Linux sound is OK, but I stick to BSD because it offers the best "multimedia" performance available today.
Of course I use a hand-compiled MPlayer for the video stuff.
Doesn't everybody use libmad.so for mpeg sound?
Madplayer is a simple demo for the library and nothing beats it for mp3.
Today FLAC is the smart choice and you can encode with virtually just the libs.
I like flac123, but pulse sure doesn't.
;) I've ported flac123 to Linux and it works fine.BillSF
           </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28407941</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245521520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still do it "the UNIX way" with ALSA. Sure, you can't tell your script to write to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp, but you can tell it to write to aplay<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>But this being said, why would you want to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/dsp from the shell anyway? Any decent sound app will have to do some complicated manipulation of the sound device, file or not. Now, you have to choose between keeping track of ioctls and things that you can actually read. Either way, you can't use the shell to do it.</p><p>If you can't use the shell directly with it, then why complain about its UNIX-ness? What next? Have video cards export<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/opengl? ALSA does export files in the UNIX sense, just that you can't cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom into them, which wasn't that useful anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still do it " the UNIX way " with ALSA .
Sure , you ca n't tell your script to write to /dev/dsp , but you can tell it to write to aplay : ) But this being said , why would you want to use /dev/dsp from the shell anyway ?
Any decent sound app will have to do some complicated manipulation of the sound device , file or not .
Now , you have to choose between keeping track of ioctls and things that you can actually read .
Either way , you ca n't use the shell to do it.If you ca n't use the shell directly with it , then why complain about its UNIX-ness ?
What next ?
Have video cards export /dev/opengl ?
ALSA does export files in the UNIX sense , just that you ca n't cat /dev/urandom into them , which was n't that useful anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still do it "the UNIX way" with ALSA.
Sure, you can't tell your script to write to /dev/dsp, but you can tell it to write to aplay :)But this being said, why would you want to use /dev/dsp from the shell anyway?
Any decent sound app will have to do some complicated manipulation of the sound device, file or not.
Now, you have to choose between keeping track of ioctls and things that you can actually read.
Either way, you can't use the shell to do it.If you can't use the shell directly with it, then why complain about its UNIX-ness?
What next?
Have video cards export /dev/opengl?
ALSA does export files in the UNIX sense, just that you can't cat /dev/urandom into them, which wasn't that useful anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399023</id>
	<title>ALSA is rouge and OSS is violet?</title>
	<author>phoebe</author>
	<datestamp>1245430200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the user really needs to have a program output sound right until Linux goes into suspend mode, and then continues where it left off when resuming, then ALSA is (currently) the only option. I personally don't find this to be a problem, and furthermore I doubt it's a large percentage of users that even use suspend in Linux. Suspend in general in Linux isn't great, due to some rouge piece of hardware like a network or video card which screws it up.</p></div></blockquote><p>So we should be using OSS because the author doesn't use suspend on his computer?</p><p>The article is just a big rant about how difficult he finds ALSA to develop for, how he doesn't understand the benefits of a user-space audio stack as found in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical\_features\_new\_to\_Windows\_Vista#Audio" title="wikipedia.org">Windows Vista</a> [wikipedia.org] and with PulseAudio empowering Ubuntu and other distributions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the user really needs to have a program output sound right until Linux goes into suspend mode , and then continues where it left off when resuming , then ALSA is ( currently ) the only option .
I personally do n't find this to be a problem , and furthermore I doubt it 's a large percentage of users that even use suspend in Linux .
Suspend in general in Linux is n't great , due to some rouge piece of hardware like a network or video card which screws it up.So we should be using OSS because the author does n't use suspend on his computer ? The article is just a big rant about how difficult he finds ALSA to develop for , how he does n't understand the benefits of a user-space audio stack as found in Windows Vista [ wikipedia.org ] and with PulseAudio empowering Ubuntu and other distributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the user really needs to have a program output sound right until Linux goes into suspend mode, and then continues where it left off when resuming, then ALSA is (currently) the only option.
I personally don't find this to be a problem, and furthermore I doubt it's a large percentage of users that even use suspend in Linux.
Suspend in general in Linux isn't great, due to some rouge piece of hardware like a network or video card which screws it up.So we should be using OSS because the author doesn't use suspend on his computer?The article is just a big rant about how difficult he finds ALSA to develop for, how he doesn't understand the benefits of a user-space audio stack as found in Windows Vista [wikipedia.org] and with PulseAudio empowering Ubuntu and other distributions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397029</id>
	<title>Re:Pulse Audio: the best gift the Linux world gave</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1245412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The developer of PulseAudio explains some of the rationale in <a href="http://jaboutboul.blogspot.com/2009/05/sound-of-fedora-11.html" title="blogspot.com">this interview</a> [blogspot.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The developer of PulseAudio explains some of the rationale in this interview [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The developer of PulseAudio explains some of the rationale in this interview [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397065</id>
	<title>Re:What are we trying to achieve?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1245412200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while agree that PulseAudio is not ready for the primetime:<br>1) the three APIs are not that incompatible as they always include legacy modes for old apps.<br>2) I never figured out how to stop audio playing if a 2nd user logged in with alsa, but it happened by default with PA.</p><p>IMH(umble)O it would have been better for PA's features to be implemented as scripts around ALSA, but those doing the work thought differently and as im too stupid and/or lazy to do it myself, I have to live with a slightly broken PA until its finished!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while agree that PulseAudio is not ready for the primetime : 1 ) the three APIs are not that incompatible as they always include legacy modes for old apps.2 ) I never figured out how to stop audio playing if a 2nd user logged in with alsa , but it happened by default with PA.IMH ( umble ) O it would have been better for PA 's features to be implemented as scripts around ALSA , but those doing the work thought differently and as im too stupid and/or lazy to do it myself , I have to live with a slightly broken PA until its finished !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while agree that PulseAudio is not ready for the primetime:1) the three APIs are not that incompatible as they always include legacy modes for old apps.2) I never figured out how to stop audio playing if a 2nd user logged in with alsa, but it happened by default with PA.IMH(umble)O it would have been better for PA's features to be implemented as scripts around ALSA, but those doing the work thought differently and as im too stupid and/or lazy to do it myself, I have to live with a slightly broken PA until its finished!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399627</id>
	<title>Re:A sure road to success .....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245438720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows has a mass of audio paths, too.</p><p>PulseAudio is improving rapidly. The claims of code bloat, latency are provably false on many systems (1 ms.)</p><p>PA is a monster right now because it's trying to be a swiss army knife for every application and driver every written or imagined. That will boil out over time and code is updated.</p><p>There is a lot of old windows code and binaries that won't tun in their latest systems. Same for Macs.</p><p>4Front and Hannu tried to burn linux with a required, for-pay library. I'm all for making a living with quality software on Linux, but I think end user applications are a much better place to make money--not internals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has a mass of audio paths , too.PulseAudio is improving rapidly .
The claims of code bloat , latency are provably false on many systems ( 1 ms. ) PA is a monster right now because it 's trying to be a swiss army knife for every application and driver every written or imagined .
That will boil out over time and code is updated.There is a lot of old windows code and binaries that wo n't tun in their latest systems .
Same for Macs.4Front and Hannu tried to burn linux with a required , for-pay library .
I 'm all for making a living with quality software on Linux , but I think end user applications are a much better place to make money--not internals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows has a mass of audio paths, too.PulseAudio is improving rapidly.
The claims of code bloat, latency are provably false on many systems (1 ms.)PA is a monster right now because it's trying to be a swiss army knife for every application and driver every written or imagined.
That will boil out over time and code is updated.There is a lot of old windows code and binaries that won't tun in their latest systems.
Same for Macs.4Front and Hannu tried to burn linux with a required, for-pay library.
I'm all for making a living with quality software on Linux, but I think end user applications are a much better place to make money--not internals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397429</id>
	<title>Re:The fundamental problem</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1245414960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the specification point, and agree that the lowest level API should be as basic (and standard) as possible. Then, once you have that, you can layer whatever higher-level architecture you like on top, as the low-level drivers are "just there" and will "just work".</p><p>However, this doesn't help applications, necessarily. I would argue to help apps writers, you need to standardize the glue between layers, such that sound and commands can be passed from one layer to another in a predictable manner. Innovators can always add new commands that are parsed by their own injectable layer.</p><p>I would also argue that it's impossible to chain userland software a-la JACK via the kernel efficiently, as you've a double context switch per element in the chain. Since transforms are CPU intensive, you want to do the fewest composite transforms possible, which means a software mixer should be something you can chain, which means that the heavy-lifting mixer needs to be in userspace.</p><p>(Either that, or you're going to need LADSPA and LV2 support in the kernel, plus some way of coaxing "smart" sound cards into supporting such effects. Since the kernel developers would force the first coder who tried to submit such a patch to walk the plank, I don't see it as likely.)</p><p>This would leave the low-level mixer for mixing between kernel threads (rather than between applications per-se) and normalizing the inputs. If we're not having to normalize values anywhere else in the process, we should end up with improved quality and less latency. (Anything that mucks with precision hurts quality, and any operation at all hurts latency.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the specification point , and agree that the lowest level API should be as basic ( and standard ) as possible .
Then , once you have that , you can layer whatever higher-level architecture you like on top , as the low-level drivers are " just there " and will " just work " .However , this does n't help applications , necessarily .
I would argue to help apps writers , you need to standardize the glue between layers , such that sound and commands can be passed from one layer to another in a predictable manner .
Innovators can always add new commands that are parsed by their own injectable layer.I would also argue that it 's impossible to chain userland software a-la JACK via the kernel efficiently , as you 've a double context switch per element in the chain .
Since transforms are CPU intensive , you want to do the fewest composite transforms possible , which means a software mixer should be something you can chain , which means that the heavy-lifting mixer needs to be in userspace .
( Either that , or you 're going to need LADSPA and LV2 support in the kernel , plus some way of coaxing " smart " sound cards into supporting such effects .
Since the kernel developers would force the first coder who tried to submit such a patch to walk the plank , I do n't see it as likely .
) This would leave the low-level mixer for mixing between kernel threads ( rather than between applications per-se ) and normalizing the inputs .
If we 're not having to normalize values anywhere else in the process , we should end up with improved quality and less latency .
( Anything that mucks with precision hurts quality , and any operation at all hurts latency .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the specification point, and agree that the lowest level API should be as basic (and standard) as possible.
Then, once you have that, you can layer whatever higher-level architecture you like on top, as the low-level drivers are "just there" and will "just work".However, this doesn't help applications, necessarily.
I would argue to help apps writers, you need to standardize the glue between layers, such that sound and commands can be passed from one layer to another in a predictable manner.
Innovators can always add new commands that are parsed by their own injectable layer.I would also argue that it's impossible to chain userland software a-la JACK via the kernel efficiently, as you've a double context switch per element in the chain.
Since transforms are CPU intensive, you want to do the fewest composite transforms possible, which means a software mixer should be something you can chain, which means that the heavy-lifting mixer needs to be in userspace.
(Either that, or you're going to need LADSPA and LV2 support in the kernel, plus some way of coaxing "smart" sound cards into supporting such effects.
Since the kernel developers would force the first coder who tried to submit such a patch to walk the plank, I don't see it as likely.
)This would leave the low-level mixer for mixing between kernel threads (rather than between applications per-se) and normalizing the inputs.
If we're not having to normalize values anywhere else in the process, we should end up with improved quality and less latency.
(Anything that mucks with precision hurts quality, and any operation at all hurts latency.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396991</id>
	<title>Basic audio fine, multi-channel out?...</title>
	<author>Cerberus7</author>
	<datestamp>1245411840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never had trouble getting stereo output on a Linux box.  At least, not in the last few years.  5.1 through a digital out, however... that's been a nightmare for me.  I haven't tried the latest distributions, but Ubuntu just plain wouldn't do it through the digital out jack.  Fedora will, but only outputs 2 channel.  EVERYTHING I've tried hasn't worked, and no config file changes have changed my results.  I'm going to try the latest Fedora and Ubuntu soon, so we'll see if it's gotten any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never had trouble getting stereo output on a Linux box .
At least , not in the last few years .
5.1 through a digital out , however... that 's been a nightmare for me .
I have n't tried the latest distributions , but Ubuntu just plain would n't do it through the digital out jack .
Fedora will , but only outputs 2 channel .
EVERYTHING I 've tried has n't worked , and no config file changes have changed my results .
I 'm going to try the latest Fedora and Ubuntu soon , so we 'll see if it 's gotten any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never had trouble getting stereo output on a Linux box.
At least, not in the last few years.
5.1 through a digital out, however... that's been a nightmare for me.
I haven't tried the latest distributions, but Ubuntu just plain wouldn't do it through the digital out jack.
Fedora will, but only outputs 2 channel.
EVERYTHING I've tried hasn't worked, and no config file changes have changed my results.
I'm going to try the latest Fedora and Ubuntu soon, so we'll see if it's gotten any better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28416003</id>
	<title>Re:Pulse Audio: the best gift the Linux world gave</title>
	<author>grantdh</author>
	<datestamp>1245600840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following an upgrade from Ubuntu v8, I'm running Ubuntu v9.04 (Jackalope) on an EEE PC and sound was completely fraked. After doing some research, I uninstalled PulseAudio from my system and now it all works fine. Still a few tweaks required, but dang, it works.</p><p>Why the hell does PulseAudio exist if it's such a piece of crap? Why is it in Ubuntu by default?</p><p>Maybe it has great potential and could be a wonderful thing, but until "it just works" it should be an optional extra, not installed by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following an upgrade from Ubuntu v8 , I 'm running Ubuntu v9.04 ( Jackalope ) on an EEE PC and sound was completely fraked .
After doing some research , I uninstalled PulseAudio from my system and now it all works fine .
Still a few tweaks required , but dang , it works.Why the hell does PulseAudio exist if it 's such a piece of crap ?
Why is it in Ubuntu by default ? Maybe it has great potential and could be a wonderful thing , but until " it just works " it should be an optional extra , not installed by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following an upgrade from Ubuntu v8, I'm running Ubuntu v9.04 (Jackalope) on an EEE PC and sound was completely fraked.
After doing some research, I uninstalled PulseAudio from my system and now it all works fine.
Still a few tweaks required, but dang, it works.Why the hell does PulseAudio exist if it's such a piece of crap?
Why is it in Ubuntu by default?Maybe it has great potential and could be a wonderful thing, but until "it just works" it should be an optional extra, not installed by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399705</id>
	<title>Re:By saying that he proves his former point</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1245439800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never had such latency problems with Pulse on my 7-years-old machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never had such latency problems with Pulse on my 7-years-old machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never had such latency problems with Pulse on my 7-years-old machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401177</id>
	<title>ikus060</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245507360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all people who post a comment, is there any one working with the Linux community to improve the situation ? I guess not. So plz, continue bashing the Pulse and Alsa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all people who post a comment , is there any one working with the Linux community to improve the situation ?
I guess not .
So plz , continue bashing the Pulse and Alsa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all people who post a comment, is there any one working with the Linux community to improve the situation ?
I guess not.
So plz, continue bashing the Pulse and Alsa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397307</id>
	<title>Pretty sorry state indeed.</title>
	<author>powerslave12r</author>
	<datestamp>1245414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've spoiled my laptop speakers playing music on ubuntu. It takes elaborate tweaks to the equalizer and sacrificing the frequency range to get non speaker distorting sound.

I REALLY wish I knew how to get around this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've spoiled my laptop speakers playing music on ubuntu .
It takes elaborate tweaks to the equalizer and sacrificing the frequency range to get non speaker distorting sound .
I REALLY wish I knew how to get around this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've spoiled my laptop speakers playing music on ubuntu.
It takes elaborate tweaks to the equalizer and sacrificing the frequency range to get non speaker distorting sound.
I REALLY wish I knew how to get around this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703</id>
	<title>The fundamental problem</title>
	<author>parlancex</author>
	<datestamp>1245410340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem here was created when developers started trying to solve the mixing issue by writing software libraries instead of a specification.<br> <br>Instead of attempting to write a one size fits all sound library that would interface directly with the sound hardware and provide the direct interface for applications who wish to play sound, what they should have been done was drafting a specification for an API that contains only the most basic audio features (creation of primary / secondary audio buffers, enumerating supported device buffer formats, etc.). The driver provides the implementation for the specification. If the device driver indicates the device is capable of hardware mixing, it should use hardware mixing internally, if it doesn't, it uses software mixing internally, if supports the use of hardware buffers for secondary buffers it can do so, but this all will take place within within the driver specific implementation of the standard specification. This should have been paired with a robust generic open source driver that (hopefully) supported as many generic audio devices as possible. Using the interface exposed by the spec directly might seem a little low level, but additional software libraries could be built on top of that interface for use by applications. The important advantage if they had gone down THIS road is that the single conduit, the arbiter of all things audio in the system would've been the device driver for the sound hardware, which would reside neatly in the kernel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem here was created when developers started trying to solve the mixing issue by writing software libraries instead of a specification .
Instead of attempting to write a one size fits all sound library that would interface directly with the sound hardware and provide the direct interface for applications who wish to play sound , what they should have been done was drafting a specification for an API that contains only the most basic audio features ( creation of primary / secondary audio buffers , enumerating supported device buffer formats , etc. ) .
The driver provides the implementation for the specification .
If the device driver indicates the device is capable of hardware mixing , it should use hardware mixing internally , if it does n't , it uses software mixing internally , if supports the use of hardware buffers for secondary buffers it can do so , but this all will take place within within the driver specific implementation of the standard specification .
This should have been paired with a robust generic open source driver that ( hopefully ) supported as many generic audio devices as possible .
Using the interface exposed by the spec directly might seem a little low level , but additional software libraries could be built on top of that interface for use by applications .
The important advantage if they had gone down THIS road is that the single conduit , the arbiter of all things audio in the system would 've been the device driver for the sound hardware , which would reside neatly in the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem here was created when developers started trying to solve the mixing issue by writing software libraries instead of a specification.
Instead of attempting to write a one size fits all sound library that would interface directly with the sound hardware and provide the direct interface for applications who wish to play sound, what they should have been done was drafting a specification for an API that contains only the most basic audio features (creation of primary / secondary audio buffers, enumerating supported device buffer formats, etc.).
The driver provides the implementation for the specification.
If the device driver indicates the device is capable of hardware mixing, it should use hardware mixing internally, if it doesn't, it uses software mixing internally, if supports the use of hardware buffers for secondary buffers it can do so, but this all will take place within within the driver specific implementation of the standard specification.
This should have been paired with a robust generic open source driver that (hopefully) supported as many generic audio devices as possible.
Using the interface exposed by the spec directly might seem a little low level, but additional software libraries could be built on top of that interface for use by applications.
The important advantage if they had gone down THIS road is that the single conduit, the arbiter of all things audio in the system would've been the device driver for the sound hardware, which would reside neatly in the kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28403363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28415509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28408039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28405187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28415053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28407941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28416003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1937210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28415053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28403363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28415509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397935
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28407941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28402187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28416003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28408039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28396895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28399627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28398833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28405187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1937210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28397669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28400721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1937210.28401343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
