FreeBSD amd64 GENERIC kernel

Mon Dec 18 15:16:47 UTC 2017

Quoting blubee blubeeme <gurenchan at gmail.com> (from Sat, 16 Dec 2017  
21:49:08 +0800):

> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Alexander Leidinger <
> Alexander at leidinger.net> wrote:
>
>> Quoting blubee blubeeme <gurenchan at gmail.com> (from Sat, 16 Dec 2017
>> 09:39:04 +0800):

>>> The whole point of implementing 4Front oss and not a FreeBSD for is to
>>> K.I.S.S.
>>> Here's why
>>> 1)OSS v4 soundcard.h and code already hdandles ALL legacy applications w/o
>>> needing to implement special kernel kludges
>>>
>>
>> You are mixing API (soundcard.h) with implementation (FreeBSD kernel sound
>> code) and ways to change its behavior (sysctl).

I just had a look at our soundcard.h and their soundcard.h.
Yes there are differences, but this is expected as it is not a copy  
but another implementation of the same API.

I had a look (well... more a glance) at the IOCTLs and other stuff (=  
the API). Most of them are the same. There are minor differences which  
most probably mean we are implementing the OSSv4 API in v4.0, while  
4Front has moved on to OSSv4.2. Those few differences, can probably be  
implemented in FreeBSD by someone who is interested easily. The main  
point here is, are those differences that important? The parts you  
complain about are not related to those differences of the API.

[a lot of technical details and questions from me cut... you didn't  
respond to any of the serious questions I've put there]

> These are some blog posts from mid to late 2000; Please read it and
> understand what's he's trying to express; Then look at the audio programs
> and see how they continue to make the same exact mistakes in 2017 going on
> 2018.
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20111001142728/http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?page_id=34

I've read this article. It talks about userland issues in  
applications, not about issues we have in our kernel code.

> Where are these audio app developers who should be chiming in? The few
> applications that I've ported: audio/amsynth and audio/yoshimi
> one has OSS support already, the other one I am developing.
> Working on implementing the OSS support I am running into issues

Feel free to open a new thread about your issues in multimedia@, maybe  
someone can point you in the right direction.

> Instead of listening u guys keep repeating FreeBSD audio is Great....

I don't tell it is great. I tell you haven't managed yet to point out  
where it is bad. Concrete examples instead of just telling it is bad.  
My questions you skipped were targeted to find out what is not OK. So  
far you haven't delivered an answer. I'm eager to see answers to them.  
So far I've seen you (at least to my understanding) mixing up  
"implementation of an API" (= kernel code) and "API" (soundcard.h),  
and in the API mixing up "there are differences which don't matter for  
the API" (but matter for the ABI, but this is relevant for  
compatibility between FreeBSD X and FreeBSD Y) with "this is not OSSv4  
API". You complained about optional parts in the sound system which  
are disabled by default (sysctl) in a way I was understanding as that  
you complain that they are there at all (while the presence of the  
possibility not being related or affecting the ABI nor can be  
attributed to misbehavior).

I'm sure we will be open "to do something", but only if there are  
specific areas pointed out and validated to be bad, instead of just  
telling "all is bad" mixing up things while talking about it and not  
being specific at all so that other people can validate that the parts  
you complain about do not work as intended.

And if you reference to "linuxims" refers to the fact that we have  
jack and portaudio and whatever in the ports collection... well, this  
is not related to the FreeBSD sound system at all, those are 3rd party  
applications. We will not restrict which program someone wants to use  
on FreeBSD, and if those using those programs are happy with it, it is  
not related to the FreeBSD project at all. Do I agree that programs  
would be better of to use the FreeBSD native API instead of of some  
intermediate layer? In a lot of cases surely yes. Is this a  
responsibility of the FreeBSD project? Not at all. We are an open  
source project which relies on contributions to get "linux-programs"  
up and running (= ported) to FreeBSD. If you find such a program which  
doesn't behave very good on FreeBSD, you can help fixing it (by  
sending patches which make it work better on FreeBSD to the developers  
of the application in question), or find people in the FreeBSD  
community which may be interested to help fixing those programs.  
Removing those middle-layers from the ports collection is surely out  
of question as long as there is a program which depends upon one of  
them.

In short: if you want that people agree that something is not good,  
you need to come with specific items and detailed instructions how to  
repeat what you see, so that it can be validated / repeated by someone  
else.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander at Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.org    netchild at FreeBSD.org  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digitale PGP-Signatur
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-multimedia/attachments/20171218/18bcfd07/attachment.sig>