When OSS can support 8-channel, 32 precision, and 192k sampling rate, as
well as other feathere,
what is the specific niftier features that it is lack of compared with ALSA?
Thank you
Freeman
Jon Trulson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Hi!
Glynn
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Hi Joe,
I have spoken with Sanjay Pandit and he told me about BOSUG and I would be
very honored and happy to talk about audio and Open Sound with the BOSUG.
Kindly email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to discuss the agenda and dates.
Is there an eta on when
Is there document about the design and architecture and interface of oss ?
I believe that will be great help to the community.
Thank you
--Freeman
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
Folks,
The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offering the source code
Hi, Douglas,
Glad to hear from you.
As for moving X drivers to kernel, I have investigated on it. We must be
aware that nowadays the display card include two functions, 2d and 3d,
the first part does not need dma, thus can be implemented in user space
conveniently, as the 3d part, it relies
/moving_x86_video_drivers_into
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
Freeman Liu wrote:
Hi, Douglas,
Glad to hear from you.
As for moving X drivers to kernel, I have investigated on it. We must
be aware that nowadays
First I would like to briefly summary the point we reached during this
discussion.
There are several approaches to solve the issue that Solaris is lack of
driver. All of them contribute
more or less, but so far I dont think the overall result is good enough.
And UMD could be another
approach
UNIX admin wrote:
I am very glad to hear such a deep thought. Now
return to the original
question: with so many hardware not supported by
Solaris, what is the
solution ?
The solution is to remedy the cause (proactive) and not try to fix the effect
(reactive):
lobby the hardware vendors
Sooner or later, if you want drivers, you or someone else will have to roll up
their sleeves and dig into the DDI/DDK documentation on docs.sun.com. There is
no way around that, no matter which elaborate schemes (user-mode, la la la) one
comes up with.
How did Linux get so many drivers?
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Artem Kachitchkine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, adding new frameworks to the OS in order to work around legal
issues is a fundamentally flawed motivation and can lead to duplication,
added maintenance burden, confusion among developers and other problems.
Gaopeng Chen - Sun China wrote:
Sounds good. Any concrete ideas? Is it for all devices or just part of
them? Seems it's difficult to directly make a set of generic interfaces
available for all devices. How about implementing the sub-interfaces for
each domain, and then gather and think about
UNIX admin wrote:
Hi, everyone,
I would like to start a project to enable running a
driver in usr mode
as an application.
Are you sure? What about performance, i.e. user-level vs. kernel-level?
I have a prototype for audio and no difference for the audio quality.
As the cpu
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
For some more cold water (not that it should stop anyone that
believes in the idea enough to do the work!), remember UDI?
Doesn't seem to have amounted to much - I haven't heard a thing
about it in 3 or 4 years, nor do I see evidence that it resulted
in a bunch of
Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
IMHO, adding new frameworks to the OS in order to work around legal
issues is a fundamentally flawed motivation and can lead to
duplication, added maintenance burden, confusion among developers and
other problems. While there are purely technical advantages of a
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
From one other OS, maybe; multiple, I doubt it, since
each OS has a slightly different framework for drivers:
the entry points (and associated semantics) they're
supposed to provide, the kernel functions they're allowed
to call, etc.
It's not always straightforward,
Hi, everyone,
I would like to start a project to enable running a driver in usr mode
as an application.
By this way we can leverage source code from other OSes by converting them
into Solaris user application.
Also running in user mode make it easier to develop and debug. Maybe
more robust.
A powerful tool to operate the pci/pice registers and to reassign interrupt.
I have not awared that it's not open for its danger.
Burke, Christopher B. [C] wrote:
What is pcitool?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Freeman
Liu
Sent
:
On 10/25/06, Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:54:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Freeman Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal for easypci
Thanks, Freeman. Your project
Hi, James,
Thanks for your support. I'll roll out a prototype and I think you will
have a lot of suggestions.
Cheers
--Freeman
James McPherson wrote:
On 10/24/06, Freeman Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found pcitool a very useful tools, especially for driver developers.
As you know
Hi, guys,
I found pcitool a very useful tools, especially for driver developers.
As you know, there're a lot of hardware still need driver to be written.
People who have interest in pci will also found it useful.
Actually I have used in developing and hack some system successfully.
But it need
This is a excited project. I'm fed up with ftp to solaris from windows system
to share files. My question is, when can I get a prototype to try it ?
Actaully, I have worked on linux filesystem and I would like to make some
contribution. But I failed to find the project by smbfs. I think
20 matches
Mail list logo
