The wiki is still up in the 'oldwiki' section:
http://www.diyaudio.com/oldwiki/index.php?page=Digital+Sources
So pulseaudio even infects alsamixer?! In the respect of this thread, why would anyone choose to install it?
Because a lot of folks in the Ubuntu forums recommend it highly ... , and for some it adds convenience, at a still to be calculated cost ...
When pulse-audio buggered up my sound, I simply got rid of it ...
Russell
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1912111
Parameters buffer size and period size, configured by the actual playback application.
What I am talking about is the latency on the card not within Linux. Do I mix up things here?
What I am talking about is the latency on the card not within Linux. Do I mix up things here?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1909940
I see - it is the burst size reg MT18 I was referring to. Got it. Under Windows all the cards come with an own latency setting tool to set the "(internal??) latency", the same for my M-Audio Transit. The question is if these Windows setting tools are setting the Windows driver/Asio latency or the cards latency. (which is probably not the case in case of ICEes 12samples internal buffer in )
THX again.
The register MT18 is not for setting latency. The windows drivers most likely setup the DMA buffer size since that is what defines the low-level latency. Just as alsa does it. Latency in s = buffer size in bytes / sample size in bytes / sample rate in samples per second plus the tiny buffer in PCI devices. Cards with build-in DSP can have a variable internal latency, depending on length of the DSP processing chain. But that is not the case of ice1712/24.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Once upon a time there was a young computer student who wanted to run UNIX on a personal computer. There was also a bunch of GNU tools lying around that were covered under GNU/GPL license. Here is the first post:
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).
I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them
Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
There _are_ a million hackers working in different directions because they are working on things that interest them, just like young Linus long ago. No promises or warranties were ever made about anything, ever.
There are. Stop making gross generalizations. There are many high-quality, all volunteer projects that put out incredibly complex, high quality, and stable pieces of software. Should I even have to mention Debian (on which Voyage is based) and all the hardware architectures and software packages it supports? Does Debian, et al., have their fair share of problems? Sure! Can _you_ point to any one organization (corporate, health-care, civil service, military) that doesn't behave dysfunctionally in some manner or other? Managing and working with people on a regular basis in any endeavor is an incredibly challenging feat, even more so with people who code complex software for pleasure in their spare time.
Again, you show how incredibly misinformed and naive you are. Open-Office is an incredibly bloated, buggy piece of crap -- even with its corporate backing! There are other more stable, high quality, *all-volunteer* editors available for Linux. Have you ever even heard of Lyx, which is a true document processor?
Yup, it's so inefficient and there were so many man hours "burned" that you can *NOT* run Linux on anything x64, SPARC, MIPS, POWERPC, ARM, emdedded devices, supercomputers, gum stick sized (http://www.gumstix.com/) computers, etc., etc., etc., or anything of that sort. Just millions(!) of man hours burned...
It's not about control. It's about freedom. Freedom to work on a project or to tinker with something that interests you. Which is why you completely miss the point.
*It*, or Linux, doesn't depend on anything or anybody. Linux is just a kernel. I think what you meant to say is that *you* are dependent on Linux (a free OS!) to get stuff done, and you're frustrated because Linux doesn't work _exactly_ the way you want it to or think it should.
As far as the bus factor, i.e., if Linus got hit by a bus tomorrow --which has been discussed for years-- not much would change. If you knew anything about Linux kernel development then you would understand that Linus does very little programming on the kernel itself these days. He's too busy administrating the thousands of patches that are submitted on a regular basis. He's a great programmer and a superb maintainer but he is replaceable. Maybe Andrew Morton (who maintains the 2.6-linux-next kernel) will take over. Life goes on and so will the Linux kernel.
It is *very* easy to criticize other people's hard work when you have contributed absolutely nothing in return. It is proof that you have contributed absolutely nothing of substance because of your naive and myopic criticisms, otherwise you would not be spouting such drivel.
"Control the kernel business"?? What does that even mean. You are so off the mark that it is not even amusing. If you think that the "upper layers are not organized" then I suggest you join the LKML (www.http://lkml.org/) and tell them that you have all the answers. Roll up your sleeves while your at it.
What Shuttleworth does with his millions is his business. Although, from what I understand, he is in the business of dumping his personal fortune into improving one facet of the GNU/Linux desktop environment and then giving away the fruits of his fortune and labor away under the GPL. Again, no one is forcing you to use his Ubunut OS, and you're free to fork it (as others have done) as you see fit.
Famous last words. Let us know when you are going to drop *everything* and start contributing code on a regular basis to the ALSA project, to Ubuntu, to Tiny Core Linux, to MPD, to Voyage Linux, etc. And no, tinkering with MPD and configuring -rt kernels is *not* the same as coding and working with others in a collaborative effort to produce actual software.
You know little about Linux and computer based audio in general. But keep spouting trendy computer-audiophile buzz words like rt kernels, latency, jitter, etc. because there's always an even more ignorant audience ready to gobble it up.
Don't take my reply as me getting angry, ranting, or personally attacking you -- I'm too old to get worked up over an audiophile web forum. It's just a rebuttal.
Last edited:
On the one hand I must defend Soundcheck's script for updating Alsa. I use it (with a minor mod) often, it makes the process easier and I think Alsa should have a version of that available through the Wiki.
However I think NYC Paramedic is correct in the nature and reality of Linux. (His defense is well written and documented). Linux not worse and in some ways much better than Windows or OSX. The dirty laundry is out in public for all to see. Much of it gets swept away by others contributing useful fixes or replacements. It doesn't have hidden code or code marked do not change. Its adaptibility gives it part of the strength and also explains the many variations. Its more like going to an old fashioned hardware store with lots of options than going to Home Depot and selecting among the few highly profitable options they actually offer.
Working with Linux is not easy. Its constantly changing so what you knew yesterday doesn't apply today, sometimes with disastrous results (like when VLC made native rate hard to do as an improvement). Via has submitted a ton of patches to the Via driver for the VT1708 and similar audio chips. The first would have limited the sample rate for SPDIF to 48 KHz. Fortunately a few of us squealed and they pulled the change. If it were Windows or OSX the effects would have not been known for months and may never get fixed. With Linux its much harder to hide.
If Linux were easy it would be much more limited. OSX is easy. But sample rate changes are not automatic (unless you buy Amarra $$$). Thats the way you make it easy.
Alsa is difficult to understand and work with. Its also very flexible. I have seen some asound.conf files that were programs in themselves to do lots of things that would be very difficult on other platforms. The default operation gives MOST users exactly what they want: noises from the speakers. That alone is an accomplishment.
However I think NYC Paramedic is correct in the nature and reality of Linux. (His defense is well written and documented). Linux not worse and in some ways much better than Windows or OSX. The dirty laundry is out in public for all to see. Much of it gets swept away by others contributing useful fixes or replacements. It doesn't have hidden code or code marked do not change. Its adaptibility gives it part of the strength and also explains the many variations. Its more like going to an old fashioned hardware store with lots of options than going to Home Depot and selecting among the few highly profitable options they actually offer.
Working with Linux is not easy. Its constantly changing so what you knew yesterday doesn't apply today, sometimes with disastrous results (like when VLC made native rate hard to do as an improvement). Via has submitted a ton of patches to the Via driver for the VT1708 and similar audio chips. The first would have limited the sample rate for SPDIF to 48 KHz. Fortunately a few of us squealed and they pulled the change. If it were Windows or OSX the effects would have not been known for months and may never get fixed. With Linux its much harder to hide.
If Linux were easy it would be much more limited. OSX is easy. But sample rate changes are not automatic (unless you buy Amarra $$$). Thats the way you make it easy.
Alsa is difficult to understand and work with. Its also very flexible. I have seen some asound.conf files that were programs in themselves to do lots of things that would be very difficult on other platforms. The default operation gives MOST users exactly what they want: noises from the speakers. That alone is an accomplishment.
I would even say "due to its corporate backing". IMO OpenOffice is not a real open source project - no large development community has evolved and probably will never do so. The reasons are numerous, I feel one is the lack of "openness" from Sun. E.g. see Contributing Patches - OpenOffice.org Wiki and Pending JCAs - OpenOffice.org Wiki - very sad reading. I would not be surprised if eventually KOffice surpassed OpenOffice. Or perhaps Oracle decides to release OpenOffice as I guess it has no added value to its core business. A low-cost foundation similar to KDE would be fantastic. I know, my dreams only
THX for pointing it out. You seem to be well informed.
I guess that's the one you're talking about:
LinuxToday
The other day I made it to "Tool of the week" at Ubuntu forums.
I think I need to spent some more time on it to make it even better.
Last edited:
WRT OpenOffice, this is a fun chart too:
http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/irt_index.html
Nb. of days between submitting a patch and having an official reaction: over 40 days Which voluntary developer is willing to wait over a month for a reply?
But the community forum Index page • OpenOffice.org Community Forum seems to be very lively with very knowledgeable people actively participating. Good sign
http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/irt_index.html
Nb. of days between submitting a patch and having an official reaction: over 40 days
Which voluntary developer is willing to wait over a month for a reply?But the community forum Index page • OpenOffice.org Community Forum seems to be very lively with very knowledgeable people actively participating. Good sign
You seem to be well informed.
Well, LT is my daily reading.
I think I need to spent some more time on it to make it even better.
Who would say "no" to that?
Folks.
Just to make one thing clear. I am not against Linux. Not at all. That should actually be obvious.
Linux has a market share of approx. 1% . Next comes OSX approx. 9% the rest is
taken by MS. The outside world anticipates that MS will even gain back share with W7.
Linux is still nothing else then a niche product. If anybody in the world wants to
change that, then you just have to make the basic things right.
Why should anybody stay with a commercial system? Why is the market share not growing significantly - if it is that great?
It won't help if you close your eyes and live up your dreams. Face the reality. There are shortages.
My statements must be seen in the context of "normal" user behavior. Many of the people around here are old school hackers.
At Ubuntuforums you'll get feedback from normal users. None of them will convert to become a hacker. I said that before: If a basic function won't work they'll drop the Linux Live-DVD and boot up MS -- it is that easy.
Calling me "naive" is really funny. Am I the one being dogmatic about something?
I won't argue about my statements. (I could give tons of examples - I skip that)
>>A"Openoffice = Piece of sh..!?!?"
A statement like that says all about the writer. I won't comment that.
Note:
My rt-kernel undertaking and my own player (now) is the result of tweaking the entire OS and playback chain for best performance.
We just tested it against other highly regarded PC based playback systems such as CPLAY/XXHighend. The response: "There is no way to switch back to one of these".
Just to make one thing clear. I am not against Linux. Not at all. That should actually be obvious.
Linux has a market share of approx. 1% . Next comes OSX approx. 9% the rest is
taken by MS. The outside world anticipates that MS will even gain back share with W7.
Linux is still nothing else then a niche product. If anybody in the world wants to
change that, then you just have to make the basic things right.
Why should anybody stay with a commercial system? Why is the market share not growing significantly - if it is that great?
It won't help if you close your eyes and live up your dreams. Face the reality. There are shortages.
My statements must be seen in the context of "normal" user behavior. Many of the people around here are old school hackers.
At Ubuntuforums you'll get feedback from normal users. None of them will convert to become a hacker. I said that before: If a basic function won't work they'll drop the Linux Live-DVD and boot up MS -- it is that easy.
Calling me "naive" is really funny. Am I the one being dogmatic about something?
I won't argue about my statements. (I could give tons of examples - I skip that)
>>A"Openoffice = Piece of sh..!?!?"
A statement like that says all about the writer. I won't comment that.
Note:
My rt-kernel undertaking and my own player (now) is the result of tweaking the entire OS and playback chain for best performance.
We just tested it against other highly regarded PC based playback systems such as CPLAY/XXHighend. The response: "There is no way to switch back to one of these".
I find W7 the same hype as W vista.
You still miss the main point - most voluntary linux developers do not have the goal of everyone using linux. They want the system to satisfy their needs. If KDE developers took the user base as a main goal they would have never started developing KDE4. The increased user base comes as a by-product , not the goal. It all takes time.
Paid-for developers satisfy needs of their employer/contractor. If RedHat wants to sell more server support licenses, they have to contribute to development of kernel and corporate server SW. If Ubuntu wants to sell more Ubuntu One and later on some support licenses, they do what they can within their limited budget.
So where are the extra development reserves you are talking about?
So what, they may try next time, in a few years when the functions get smoothed out. And they will, it just takes time. There are no corporate budgets to be depleted and projects shut down.
Well, we can still argue about the low-latency push
Come on. E.g. XXHighend is a hype which many people dispute. The author never talks about internals and I still have not seen the bit-perfection tests. The author may do some nice-to-ears DSP.
Then why is it easy for you to co-opt other peoples hard work for your particular needs and then make disparaging remarks about said software? Go back and read your comments.
The actual market share of Linux is unknown. It matters not to the GNU/Linux community what the "outside world" anticipates in regards to Microsoft software.
You are _flat_ wrong and that is why I called you naive. I gave you numerous examples in my original reply and you continue to spread misinformation. Even Steve Ballmer has admitted in interviews that close to %62 of all Internet servers run Linux. Niche, eh?
What "basic things"? One man's basic is another man's nightmare. Basic on what hardware? Two similar laptops with different BIOS's and totally different ACPI tables? How "basic" should software be? A really basic word processor that works great for one user one week but frustrates him the next because the software is so "basic" that he can't insert a simple table into his document? "Basic" sound support for the user who wants "basic" sound, but then six months later wants to have 3 high end USB DAC's and "basic" sound just to "basically" work? Or do you mean "basic" wireless networking to work when the hardware vendor wants to take advantage of selling to Linux customers but won't release an open driver or hardware specs?
No one really cares about market share. It grows because people are working on things that interests them and not because they looking to increase "market" share. Go back and carefully read Linus's quoted first post regarding Linux. No one said it was "great". It's just a free kernel and OS that gives you the freedom to use your computer the way you see fit and modify the source code to your liking if you choose to do so.
I know English is not your native language, but I really have no idea what this means.
No such thing as a "normal" user. Not when it comes to Linux, Mac, Windows, or any tool of even moderate complexity, e.g., a simple hammer or a magnetic compass. This is why you are failing miserably in not only expressing yourself but also in understanding GNU/Linux.
They weren't born that way. They each put varying degrees of effort into learning electronics theory and/or using computers. None of them are can be labeled "normal" hackers either.
Patently and totally false. There are former Ubuntu users who frequently flock over to the the debian-user list and end up staying there. They realize that using something like Debian isn't that much more complicated than using Ubuntu. Some of those same folk also end up helping less knowledgeable debian users on debian-user, learn how to write scripts, and maybe learn a language like Python or Perl, etc. It all depends on the particular user.
The most "basic" computer function that I can think of right now is making a zero turn into the number one, but it doesn't do much for a "normal" user. Even doing that --on a quantum physics level-- ain't all that "basic".
Let them boot "MS". 'Cause we all know that Microsoft -- multi-*billion* dollar corporation-- has gotten all the "basics" expertly done, right? Since Vista's release, it has made every other operating system obsolete. Windows 7 is just Microsoft's latest philanthropic gesture to mankind.
It is not funny, nor was it meant to be funny. It is true. Your earlier comments, which I carefully refuted, are evidence of your naivety. You keep making sweeping generalizations and use grand stereotypes without really saying anything much of substance.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
dogma
n 1: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: {tenet}]
2: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he
believed all the Marxist dogma"
Yes. Read your comments. See that part about "without proof"? Many of your posts are full of that, specifically the one that I replied to earlier.
Of course you won't. You're too busy waxing rhapsodic about how the last rt kernel you compiled has made a huge sound improvement!
If you are going to quote someone then do it properly. The word sh..t did not appear in my post. The word was crap. In language --especially computer based language-- the devil is in the details. What the "writer" said about Openoffice is true, and even the OO developers have admitted such on some occasions. It just the nature of software that tries to do too many things.
Sorry, but that "best performance" statement is just your opinion, nothing more. Self anointed internet/computer/audiophile "experts" are a dime a dozen these days.
No, you didn't do any sort of test. The word "test" would imply some sort of scientific legitimacy. All you did was get together with a bunch of guys and do some listening. Doesn't prove a damn thing.
These "highly regarded" playback systems you speak of. Who are they highly regarded by? Other self anointed "audiophile" experts? What makes them so highly regarded in a field (computer based audio) that is still in its infancy?
Wow. How profound.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.