Benno Senoner wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, you wrote:
> > >
> > > I want LAAGA working on OSS/Free , OSS too.
> > > That's one of the reasons why I do prefer keeping it separate.
> >
> > A backend for OSS is scheduled (although low priority).
>
> That's not an option.
> Many developers (inclu
>> I think that the best solution would be the integration of
>> ALSA with LAAGA (with obvious mutual benefits). This likely
>> means some changes to ALSA API too.
>
>I would like LAAGA to be a fast, lean, easy to use, higher
>level (than the sound driver itself) API that _hides_ the
>hardware int
[Abramo wrote]
> I think that the best solution would be the integration of
> ALSA with LAAGA (with obvious mutual benefits). This likely
> means some changes to ALSA API too.
I would like LAAGA to be a fast, lean, easy to use, higher
level (than the sound driver itself) API that _hides_ the
hard
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, you wrote:
> >
> > I want LAAGA working on OSS/Free , OSS too.
> > That's one of the reasons why I do prefer keeping it separate.
>
> A backend for OSS is scheduled (although low priority).
That's not an option.
Many developers (including me) do not have the time to keep up
Benno Senoner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, you wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe (as I've said several times) that OSS and ALSA are Hardware
> > > Abstraction Layers, and not anything close to a model of a generalized
> > > design for connecting multiple applications/plugins in a low latency
> > >
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, you wrote:
> >
> > I believe (as I've said several times) that OSS and ALSA are Hardware
> > Abstraction Layers, and not anything close to a model of a generalized
> > design for connecting multiple applications/plugins in a low latency
> > system. They work well or even very
