Larry Alkoff wrote: > > Thanks for your help. I have made progress. Remarks in line. > > On 12 Apr 2002 03:45:36 -0500, Barthel aus Pennswald wrote: > > >On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 02:40, Larry Alkoff wrote: > >Personally, I'd also recommed getting the 0.9 beta ALSA packages and > >upgrading your kernel as well (but upgrading your kernel is *not* a > >prerequisite for getting ALSA to work.) > > > > Forgive me for not using the beta drivers as you suggested but I'm a little >uncomfortable > with beta and thought I'd give the stable drivers another chance to compile - which >they > did. >
ALSA 0.5.x being called stable vs. 0.9.x being called beta/development should not be taken in the same sense as it is for many other projects. The 0.5.x series has seen very little work in the past 2(?) years aside from some bug fixes. The 0.9.x series is drastically different from 0.5.x in many ways. 0.5.x is old and nearly obsolete. Many of the developers have said so themselves. There was some talk of changing the label of 0.5.x to something like "historical archive version for reference sake only - not to be used anymore" I'm not sure why a change like this has not yet been made on the alsa-project website. -Eric Rz. _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
