Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

At Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:30:29 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > > > i don't think that, even if we had had fons on board at that time, that > > > the idea of using a DLL rather than interrupts to truly drive the whole > > > system would have occured to anyone in 1996-2000. > > > > Probably not, but I r

RE: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re:[linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> > windows applies transparent software mixing to each API ? > > No, on Windows "pro" apps use ASIO and "consumer" apps use MME/DirectX. > > Lee Not entirely true, Sonar achieves very nice solid latencies with WDM and MME drivers (both of which are used for "consumer" purposes as well). Best w

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> This question amounts to "how do I block the device without > blocking the device".  You can't do this with any OS. Sorry, this was caused by my bad english skills. I'll try anew. Waht I really meant was: * We all agree that we don't want JACK to use on top of DMIX, we want JACK to run dire

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 18:09 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: > ALSA > direct access is no choice because it blocks the device. DMIX > is a choice, but what if I want to use JACK simultaneously > without using DMIX? This question amounts to "how do I block the device without blocking the device".

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 11:02 +0200, Benno Senoner wrote: > How does windows handle such stuff ? You simply write MME/WDM audio > apps > and > windows applies transparent software mixing to each API ? No, on Windows "pro" apps use ASIO and "consumer" apps use MME/DirectX. Lee

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> What's the current "coding standard" for consumer audio > apps that should work in both > KDE and GNOME enviroments ? Use ALSA directly, support both > artsd/esd etc ? that's the problem. Currently there's no "standard", but creating one would simplify life a lot for developers of any kind of

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hi, > > I guess we are in need of some guys who help making JACK > > ready for the desktop. > > If you're on KDE 3.3+, try these Setup/Options on qjackctl: > > [X] Execute script on Startup: >     `artsshell -q terminate` > > [X] Execute script after Startup: >     `artsd -F 4 -S 1024 -a jack -m

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

I agree with Rui, arts piped into jack is probably the best solution currently. And when doing paranoid low latency audio work just kill artsd as Rui said. I'm not a big user of consumer audio apps (eg mailer that emits BOING.WAV) but I guess due to certain apps being KDE centric and some GNOME

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> > I guess we are in need of some guys who help making JACK ready > for the desktop. > > If you're on KDE 3.3+, try these Setup/Options on qjackctl: [X] Execute script on Startup: `artsshell -q terminate` [X] Execute script after Startup: `artsd -F 4 -S 1024 -a jack -m artsmessage -c dr

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> We > "pro audio guys" hate these bells and chimes, but to other > users they can be important, and somehow you need some way > to send these sounds from a Gonme/KDE app using Gnome/KDE > libs to the soundcard, preferably in a simple, consistent > way for application developers. That's the poin

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> > Which audio subsystem should they support? ALSA > > direct access is no choice because it blocks the device. > > DMIX is a choice, but what if I want to use JACK > > simultaneously without using DMIX? > > Is that realistic ? Would you do any serious audio work and > leave all the desktop toys

Re: Audio APIs GNOME & KDE (was Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?))

> Have you considered Polypaudio: > >     http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/polypaudio/ > > The Ubuntu people are looing at replacing ESD with this > one. Yep: »polypaudio is a sound server for Linux and other Unix like operating systems. It is intended to be an improved drop-in replacement

Audio APIs GNOME & KDE (was Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?))

Damon Chaplin wrote: > GNOME & KDE are complete development platforms, so they need to support > the development of audio applications. > > I'm not saying they should develop new libraries. Just that they need to > standardize on particular APIs/libraries that all work together OK. > > (I think

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hallo, fons adriaensen hat gesagt: // fons adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > > ... like Ardour, which requires Jack instead of working with Arts or > > Esound. > > JACK is not part of any desktop system. It's absolutely neutral in > this se

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: > ... like Ardour, which requires Jack instead of working with Arts or > Esound. JACK is not part of any desktop system. It's absolutely neutral in this sense, _and_ designed to support 'professional' audio. For a tool like Ardour,

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:09:52PM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: > Which audio subsystem should they support? ALSA > direct access is no choice because it blocks the device. DMIX > is a choice, but what if I want to use JACK simultaneously > without using DMIX? Is that realistic ? Would you

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Friday 17 Jun 2005 14:24, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > A few days ago I kicked up Rosegarden again to see if it could be > useful for the project I was starting. It wasn't so I terminated it, > only to find out later that there were still a number of KDE > applications running, including a sound d

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hallo, Alfons Adriaensen hat gesagt: // Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:48:11PM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: > > GNOME & KDE are complete development platforms, so they need to support > > the development of audio applications. > > 1. You don't need GNOME or KDE support to de

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hi Christoph, On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 18:09 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: > > 1. You don't need GNOME or KDE support to develop audio > > applications any more than you need their support for > > accessing files, the network, the display or whatever. So > > they should remain neutral on this matter

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hi, > 1. You don't need GNOME or KDE support to develop audio > applications any more than you need their support for > accessing files, the network, the display or whatever. So > they should remain neutral on this matter. I absolutely agree. But why did they start to use arts/esound/gstreamer?

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:48:11PM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: > On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:57 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: > > > > > Out of interest, what APIs do you think GNOME and KDE should provide for > > > sound? > > >

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:57 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: > > > Out of interest, what APIs do you think GNOME and KDE should provide for > > sound? > > None. Why should a window manager / desktop provide its own API for > such th

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Le 17 juin 05 à 01:51, Jay Vaughan a écrit : Maybe the timers used aren't precise enough for this.. I don't know. Anyone? coreaudio does dynamic re-sampling of its 'common feed-pool' ring- buffer for audio i/o, so maybe this delay compensation is factored in that calculation? I think co

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: > Out of interest, what APIs do you think GNOME and KDE should provide for > sound? None. Why should a window manager / desktop provide its own API for such things ? -- FA

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

It would be great to standardize on one set of APIs that provided support for both general purpose and professional quality audio apps (and all working together happily). Apples' API docs for CoreAudio can be found here: http://developer.apple.com/audio/pdf/coreaudio.pdf great reading, actuall

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Maybe the timers used aren't precise enough for this.. I don't know. Anyone? coreaudio does dynamic re-sampling of its 'common feed-pool' ring-buffer for audio i/o, so maybe this delay compensation is factored in that calculation? multiple clients with independent sample-rates/bit-formats ca

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:50 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > but more broadly, windows is not the gold standard here, OS X is, and > the truth is that apple have designed a much better system from day one. > on OS X, things do work more or less the way jwz and many other people > think they should. JACK

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:54:01 +0200 fons adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Strange... If you would program a timer using the info available from > jackd's DLL, it would never generate its interrupt before the HW is > ready (i.e. has at least a period available). It would actually trigger > j

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:57:51PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote: > Ah, i remembered slightly incorrectly. Thanks Paul, for setting me > straight in #ardour. The thing is that the DLL based client thread > wakeup has the ever so slight possibility to do its thing too early. > Thus coreaudio waits a

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:20:41 +0200 fons adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The price for this is afaik an extra period worth of latency. I'm not > > sure this is the way to go. Sure it makes handling of devices easier > > that do not generate irq's like pci soundcards do (all this USB and >

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:59:09PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:30:29 -0400 > Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > true, but i take it you get the way CoreAudio is doing it: it means you > > can drive audio processing from a different interrupt source (e.g. > > sys

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:30:29 -0400 Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > true, but i take it you get the way CoreAudio is doing it: it means you > can drive audio processing from a different interrupt source (e.g. > system timer) because you have very accurate idea of the position of the > h/w f

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:30:29AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > true, but i take it you get the way CoreAudio is doing it: it means you > can drive audio processing from a different interrupt source (e.g. > system timer) because you have very accurate idea of the position of the > h/w frame pointer.

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

true, but i take it you get the way CoreAudio is doing it: it means you can drive audio processing from a different interrupt source (e.g. system timer) because you have very accurate idea of the position of the h/w frame pointer. In CoreAudio, the "callback" is decoupled from any PCI, USB or ieee

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> > i don't think that, even if we had had fons on board at that time, that > > the idea of using a DLL rather than interrupts to truly drive the whole > > system would have occured to anyone in 1996-2000. > > Probably not, but I remember we (at Alcatel) used them in soft DSP > systems at that tim

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:22:17AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > i don't think thats entirely fair. when jaroslav started ALSA i think he > was intent on a set of ideas that looked like the best choices at the > time. the goal was to improve lots of issues with OSS, including its > requirement for al

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> never worked right here, end up using the arts backend (and > jack backend for arts...and alsa backend for jack...). how > many chained APIs does one need? > > mplayer -ao jack blabla.mp3: > AO: [Jack] Initialising library. > MPlayer interrupted by signal 11 in module: ao2_init > - MPlayer crash

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> Well, if Alsa went the CoreAudio direction and did a proper > callback-based audio API ala Jack, and did s/w mixing automagically, we > wouldn't need all this mess. > > Unfortunately, the Alsa people didn't seem to think replacing OSS was a > good opportunity to improve anything, so here we are

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Wed, 2005-15-06 at 10:36 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:50:11AM +0200, Lars Luthman wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 20:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 21:16 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > > > > b) an [mplayer/skype] patch-fest to bring them in

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Ranting on his blog just makes him look like an ass. Lee but .. thats what blogs are for. -- ; Jay Vaughan

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:50:11AM +0200, Lars Luthman wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 20:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 21:16 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > > > b) an [mplayer/skype] patch-fest to bring them in line with that > > > strategy using actual source changes (where po

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 20:52 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 21:16 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > > b) an [mplayer/skype] patch-fest to bring them in line with that > > strategy using actual source changes (where possible) > > Skype is closed source and the mplayer developers are a

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 21:09 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > >That's it? Why do people listen to this guy again, he seems to be just > >another idiot luser who blames ALSA for every XMMS bug. > > ever heard of netscape? jwz is one of the glory-children of that > project, a very active F/OSS advocate

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 21:16 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > b) an [mplayer/skype] patch-fest to bring them in line with that > strategy using actual source changes (where possible) Skype is closed source and the mplayer developers are a pain in the ass to deal with due to blatant pro-OSS (as in /dev

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> a) a well-formed strategy to clean up the Linux mess, and > b) an [mplayer/skype] patch-fest to bring them in line with > that strategy using actual source changes (where possible), > and c) far greater advocacy of the success of linux audio > by its users and boot-CD makers .. > > ... would do

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

he [jwz] also doesn't understand how few people produced ALSA. i dunno, i don't want to speak for jwz, but i'm pretty sure he's aware just how a few people can get a very great thing done. you may say he's seasoned at it, in fact, and knows the pitfalls 'the mob' go through in order to get

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

That's it? Why do people listen to this guy again, he seems to be just another idiot luser who blames ALSA for every XMMS bug. ever heard of netscape? jwz is one of the glory-children of that project, a very active F/OSS advocate over the years. this story is important because it is about a

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> This all tells me that the distro maintainers put a > shockingly low priority on having sound work OOTB, > otherwise, why didn't they do this a year ago?  AFAICT it's > just laziness. Laziness and commercial pressure. The commercial distros spend their time in patching kernels, creating distr

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> it would be great to counter the jwz diatribe with a mass > of 'well, sound works just fine for me' posts from those > who do have, and use daily, a working audio sub-system > under linux.. We aren't there - not yet. [...] > i'm sure there are LAD'ers whose systems are superlative > examples

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:50 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > Also, he seems to be pissed because he bought one of the new "SBLives" > > that uses the snd-ca0106 driver, and expects to get hardware mixing like > > a real SBLive. He's just an idiot, and his beef is with Creative, not > > the ALSA people

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

> Also, he seems to be pissed because he bought one of the new "SBLives" > that uses the snd-ca0106 driver, and expects to get hardware mixing like > a real SBLive. He's just an idiot, and his beef is with Creative, not > the ALSA people. jwz isn't an idiot, and he doesn't expect h/w mixing. he

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hi, Why not solve this kinds of problems. Soulutions: 1) Remove OSS drivers from kernel - then all problems will be alsa problems. 2) Remove OSS emulation from alsa - then all problems will be OSS problems. Otherways this will be newer end. Peter Zubaj __

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:12 +0200, Jan Weil wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2005, 10:36 -0400 schrieb Lee Revell: > > Who in the hell is this jwz, and why does everyone care what he thinks > > so much? Can someone at least post a link to this rant of his? > > This one? > > jwz - fuck the skull o

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:12 +0200, Jan Weil wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2005, 10:36 -0400 schrieb Lee Revell: > > Who in the hell is this jwz, and why does everyone care what he thinks > > so much? Can someone at least post a link to this rant of his? > > This one? > > jwz - fuck the skull o

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Jan Weil wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2005, 10:36 -0400 schrieb Lee Revell: Who in the hell is this jwz, and why does everyone care what he thinks so much? Can someone at least post a link to this rant of his? This one? jwz - fuck the skull of alsa

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2005, 10:36 -0400 schrieb Lee Revell: > Who in the hell is this jwz, and why does everyone care what he thinks > so much? Can someone at least post a link to this rant of his? This one? jwz - fuck the skull of alsa

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:27 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > jwz, like it or not, leads opinion. he makes news. agree with him > or disagree with him: you're still being led into an opinion on a > subject as a result of his effort, either way. Who in the hell is this jwz, and why does everyone care

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

Hi, I have a PlanetCCRMA FC2 system on a Dell Inspiron8200 (P4 1.6G 512 ram) that works absolutely fantastic, both with the onboard AC97 card and with the pcmcia Echo Mona Interface. Latency in jack 5.4 ms very reliably (xruns ocasionally when doing something you know will cause an xrun, like when

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

I think we should take it for what it is: a whiney rant from someone who is famous for whining about anything and everything. sorry, but i don't agree. Why should we care what jwz thinks? jwz, like it or not, leads opinion. he makes news. agree with him or disagree with him: you're sti

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

On Tue, 2005-14-06 at 10:50 +0200, Jay Vaughan wrote: > >I must admit, I had to double-check that I really am reading the > >year-2005 folder of linux-audio-dev, and not some old mails from the > >archives. ;) Now that SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora and others have started > >to use dmix as the default out