FreeBSD amd64 GENERIC kernel

[blubee blubeeme]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Hans Petter Selasky <hps at selasky.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 12/15/17 11:34, blubee blubeeme wrote:
>
>> I feel like you're talking at something and not understanding my
>> objectives.
>> It's pretty simple: replace ALSA w/ upstreamed OSS.
>>
>
> I think you need to dig a bit more into the code itself to see what are
> the actual differences before I can say if your idea is good or not. I'm
> sorry, but I don't know opensound's code well enough to comment further on
> this.
>
> FreeBSD's implementation of OSS is missing a few features that hamstring
>> the development on FreeBSD.
>>
>
> What are those features exactly? Why can't they be implemented in
> FreeBSD's sound stack?
>
> Also, why would FreeBSD want to maintain it's own implementation of an open
>> source project?
>>
> I believe this has been discussed before and maybe there are more threads
> around which will answer your question.
>
> https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/163/
>
>
>> What part of oss source:
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/opensound/git/ci/master/tree/
>> is a binary blob?
>>
>>
> OK, I see the source code is available and that "audio/oss" is compiled
> from source.
>
> --HPS
>
This is exactly what I am talking about.
FreeBSD OSS implementation is better, let's update it:
https://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley
That was created in 2008 and never touched a day after, why?

Hey guys why don't you use oss in base, because our oss is better and we
make it match our kernel.
Okay great, can we update it, nope we don't have the manpower to do that.

Did "RyanBeasley (last edited 2008-06-17 21:37:27 by localhost)"
ever come back and did any work other than create a wiki page?

So, when will FreeBSD OSS fork get in sync with what's available online
right now?
What's with the circular logic here?