DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > OpenBSD > OpenBSD General

OpenBSD General Other questions regarding OpenBSD which do not fit in any of the categories below.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default Looks like -CURRENT has a new toy..

So, doing my usual source-commits check.. I noticed this commit:

http://www.marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&...2327104788&w=2

Looks like OpenBSD has it's own sound server/mixer now..

Think anyone will write mplayer/vlc back ends to libsa(3) any time soon?
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
Carpetsmoker's Avatar
Carpetsmoker Carpetsmoker is offline
Real Name: Martin
Old man from scene 24
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
Posts: 2,080
Thanked 198 Times in 156 Posts
Default

What's wrong with OSS?
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Yeeeeeaaah! Another useless audio shit, yeeaaah!

Use crossplatform OSS@FreeBSD / OSS4 or die.
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Wow, such negativity..

They still have the OSS compatibility layer.. as for the official OSS4, that isn't ported to OpenBSD, and it shouldn't be either.

What this allows for is a base ability to "multiplex" audio sources, i.e: instead of one program hogging the audio(4) device.. they can send data to a unix socket handled by aucat(1).

Basically it's a base replacement for things like esd or aRts.. all of which use the OSS API themselves.. a sound proxy if you will..

That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

So in short it alows in kernel sound mixing of many input streams but only using new libsa and not OSS?
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

In kernel? no.. aucat(1) was retrofitted with a "server" functionality.

Let's look at it this way, on OpenBSD.. the audio(4) framework is independent of ossaudio(3).

aucat(1) directly communicates with the audio(4) framework, libsa(3) communicates with aucat(1) via a Unix socket (in /tmp), if aucat isn't running.. it falls back to directly using audio(4).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandre Ratchov
programs can use the new libsa(3) library to play and record audio. The library provides a very simple API to connect to the audio server; if aucat(1) isn't running, it uses the audio(4) driver transparently instead.
Most 3rd party ports use ossaudio(3), wrapper library /usr/lib/libossaudio.*, or one of the other (Typically GPL'd) sound servers I mentioned above.

Everyone happy now?
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Everybody comunicates with everybody, but I still dont know what you are talking about

default:
libsa <--> aucat <--> audio

failback:
libsa <--> audio

... but where is OSS in this stack?
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 26th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

It isn't anywhere, OpenBSD's audio(4) driver has it's own API.. i.e: audio(9).

libossaudio <--> audio(4) <--> audio(9) <---> Chipset specific drivers, etc

If you read the man page DESCRIPTION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ossaudio(3)
The ossaudio library provides an emulation of the OSS (Linux) audio interface.

Use the native interface for new programs and the emulation library only for porting programs.
None of the base utilities use the interface, it's only a wrapper for porting applications...
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 27th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Further update, looks like they renamed it... so, libsa is now libsndio.. also, ports are already starting to get patches!

http://www.marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&...6721928989&w=2
http://www.marc.info/?t=122507731000007&r=1&w=2

From the looks of things, it coexists nicely.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Any reasons why they do not want to import OSS4 / OSS@FreeBSD?
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
Carpetsmoker's Avatar
Carpetsmoker Carpetsmoker is offline
Real Name: Martin
Old man from scene 24
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
Posts: 2,080
Thanked 198 Times in 156 Posts
Default

OSS4 is GPL ...
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker View Post
OSS4 is GPL ...
... and BSD
... and CDDL
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Right, OSS4 is available under all 3 licences.. but the maintainer of all things audio, doesn't want a port of OSS4.

It's a kernel module, most definitely won't end up in base.. they don't like kernel modules.

Also, they don't need to port it.. the existing interface works fine.. even if they did, OSS4 doesn't support stream multiplexing either.

From what I can tell, the consensus is.. "It's easier to keep the existing framework, and merge features from the BSD licenced OSS4 when applicable."
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
OSS4 doesn't support stream multiplexing either.
From OSS4 wiki I get other info:

Code:
-- Transparent Software based Audio Mixer 
-- Allows applications to share the same "real" audio device
   regardless of what format is requested by the application. 
-- Ability to mix stereo and multichannel audio streams up to 7.1/200Khz/32bit.
More here: http://opensound.com/wiki/
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

You win this round champ, regardless.. my first point remains valid.

http://marc.info/?t=119976229400002&r=1&w=2

The topic was all about OSS4's BSD licenced release, Jacob Meuser, the maintainer, has already mentioned the fact that OpenBSD supports more chipsets with it's native framework.

I count 22 in the 4.3 release, for various architectures.. some are even on i2c buses.

The point is: They designed a native audio API they like, they improve it with each new release, and they've audited it for security.

So, debate over... IMHO.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
You win this round champ, regardless.. my first point remains valid.
That was not my point mate, to win or lose.

I just want (propably as many others) that UNIX systems should use one crossplatform "thing" for audio. Currently OSS is most populated (and always was if you do not count Linux where they reinvent the wheel every friday).

It may be libsa or even something totally new designed from scratch, but imho current best jack of all trades is OSS from FreeBSD or OSS4 (or prolably some mix of these two).


Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
Thanks for links about OpenBSD OSS discusion, will read them later.

The argument that it supports more chipsets is very small unfortunelly, if I recall corectly even ALSA supports more chipsets, but we all know what mess ALSA is, and how greatly "crossplatform" it is also ... or should I say crossdistro?
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

You keep trying to peddle OSS@FreeBSD, what makes that better then OpenBSD's existing framework? commits go in every day.. improving drivers, fixing bugs.. originally, OSS was proprietary.. many operating systems used the published API specifications and wrote wrappers to their already existing audio infrastructures.

Just because they open sourced the "real deal", doesn't mean everyone should drop their own codebase.. one they've maintained for years.. just because it'll make 5-6 people who can find the differences happy.

They have a compatibility layer, they have a native layer... and they have a new multiplexing layer.. many programs that have "audio support" also have support for backends.. as demonstrated by the recent SDL update, you can even switch between them at runtime.

Again, OSS was an API... people used that API to allow easy porting of applications, as a courtesy only..

If you still don't agree with this, fine.. but how is it any different from FreeBSD's implementation of OSS? why do you also assume it's better?

Eventually this will turn into a flame war, I don't want that.. to be fair, this is the OpenBSD section, and you are FreeBSD user, different philosophies are going to happen.. you're free to gloat about how better everything is in the other sections. (You know, the ones at the top of the forum index..).
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
You keep trying to peddle OSS@FreeBSD, what makes that better then OpenBSD's existing framework?
I "peddle" OSS@FreeBSD or OSS4 which you forgot prolably. I "peddle" them because of easy porting audio aplications, standarization, everybody use OSS and everybody are happy, simple, even KISS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
commits go in every day.. improving drivers, fixing bugs..
Thats what open source software is all about, whats the diffrence here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
They have a compatibility layer, they have a native layer... and they have a new multiplexing layer..
Layers ... people love to create them, if morethen better. This is what I am talking about mate, use ONE layer everywhere, for example OSS, didnt taht makes things simpler?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
If you still don't agree with this, fine.. but how is it any different from FreeBSD's implementation of OSS? why do you also assume it's better?
We do not have to agree, but we can respect each other.

Better? Its just very good OSS implementation that works very good, you do not have to port anything if it comes to audio part of the port, it will just work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
Eventually this will turn into a flame war, I don't want that.. to be fair, this is the OpenBSD section, and you are FreeBSD user, different philosophies are going to happen.. you're free to gloat about how better everything is in the other sections. (You know, the ones at the top of the forum index..).
As every other section its purpose is discussion, what discusion you would have with all the same votes, "yes its great", "indeed, its fabulous", "yeah its the best", "right, thats the way to go", you see ANY discusion in recent quotes?

The things we currently do in this thread is discussion, but I think that you are taking it little too personally mate.
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vermaden View Post
Better? Its just very good OSS implementation that works very good, you do not have to port anything if it comes to audio part of the port, it will just work.
What lead you to believe OpenBSD's ossaudio(3) wrapper is broken or incapable? as I said, many things in the ports tree use it.. ossaudio(3) and libsndio(3) are essentially alternative frontends to the native audio(4) API.

libsndio(3) could theoretically be ported to other systems, but in the end.. it's a simplified way to access all the features of the audio(4) API that might not be directly possible with the libossaudio(3) wrapper.

I admit, I'm getting "protective".. but both you and Carpetsmoker came here advertising OSS4/OSS@FreeBSD as the only solutions to the Unix-sound problem.

I'm not aware of the statistics, but many people use the Esd/aRts/Jack flavours instead of OSS directly. (Due to it not being a "requirement" of the API to concatenate multiple audio streams into 1.)

What harm is there in having a base library capable of fulfilling the functionality of these.. GPL.. library? I myself don't use the Esd/aRts/Jack flavours of ports due to the often complex configuration requirements.. as a punishment, I can only listen to sound in 1 application at a time..

Let's just close this topic, I respect both of you immensely.. in many matters were likely agree 100%.. but it is clear this isn't one of them.
Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
What lead you to believe OpenBSD's ossaudio(3) wrapper is broken or incapable? as I said, many things in the ports tree use it.. ossaudio(3) and libsndio(3) are essentially alternative frontends to the native audio(4) API.
If that backend supports live mixing of many audio sources from different sound frontends, then its very good, but if it is not, then its just another sound api/layer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
I'm not aware of the statistics, but many people use the Esd/aRts/Jack flavours instead of OSS directly. (Due to it not being a "requirement" of the API to concatenate multiple audio streams into 1.)
And from where this shit come from? Linux. As a workaraounds for poor ALSA/Linux OSS implementation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
I myself don't use the Esd/aRts/Jack flavours of ports due to the often complex configuration requirements.. as a punishment, I can only listen to sound in 1 application at a time..
... and that is why we encourage to use OSS code from FreeBSD / OSS4, you can have live in kernel mixing of even 256 sources of the sound, OSS channels, you can have runnig mulitple esound/arts daemons without any problem if you even want, that is flexibility and power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
Let's just close this topic, I respect both of you immensely.. in many matters were likely agree 100%.. but it is clear this isn't one of them.
Its olny discussion mate, we do not scream here, we only talk I do not see any reason to close this thread.

I also respect you, if you got other impresion, then let me correct it, I respect you very much.
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
/usr is full (OpenBSD 4.5 current) valorisa OpenBSD Packages and Ports 7 10th June 2009 01:28 PM
OpenBSD4.5 current to current... valorisa OpenBSD Installation and Upgrading 7 6th June 2009 09:26 AM
Anyone Using FreeBSD-8-Current? MetalHead FreeBSD General 3 31st March 2009 06:50 PM
4.5 -current issue roundkat OpenBSD Installation and Upgrading 11 28th February 2009 02:11 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick