Re: ALSA drivers

• Previous message: Mikael Pettersson: "Re: Targa Visionary 811 laptop (Athlon64) experiences?"
• In reply to: JJS: "ALSA drivers"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:38:09 +0200

JJS wrote:
> For instance, for some reason I can't understand (and nobody else I have
> discussed the issue with can, either), the ALSA drivers don't seem
> to play well with the esd daemon in Gnome - invariably, one or more
> channels in the board get muted when launching Gnome with an ALSA-aware
> esd. This could be esd's fault, of course;

... and it probably is. It doesn't happen with other ALSA
applications AFAIK.

(ALSA drivers mute everything when loaded, but your computer should be
configured to restore previously saved mixer settings after that.)

> To top it off, configuring the ALSA drivers is significantly more
> cumbersome than configuring the OSS ones;

This is the price one has to pay for more flexibility. And the
configuration should be done by your distribution's setup tool anyway.

> in 2.4.* kernels (where they must be compiled as modules)

... in 2.6.x kernels, too, ...

> they result in a bewildering number of modules loaded at run time.

Modularization is considered a feature (mostly for developers, as it
improves maintainability).

And you can unload any modules that you do not need.

> I can't help but wondering why they require at least 7 or 8
> modules, when the OSS drivers get the job done with a couple of
> them.

Because "the job" includes more things, such as a framework and
libraries for the hardware drivers, a complete MIDI sequencer, a
common API for applications, and, not to forget, OSS emulation.

> Now since they are being included in 2.6.* kernels instead of OSS drivers

In addition to OSS drivers.

> they must be somehow superior to the OSS ones. My question is, how
> so? I mean, from the point of view of an end user, not a
> developer.

Mostly support for (the features of) professional-grade hardware.
This isn't a big issue for 'typical' desktop users.

Oh, and wavetable support on SoundBlaster cards.

> I am willing to believe that the code is better,

It is newer, and bigger. This implies that the number of bugs tends
to be higher ...

> offers a nicer API,

with horrible documentation

> and has more solid foundations. However, for me, an end user,
> right now, that is not relevant if they don't do at least as well
> as the OSS ones. Which they haven't.

Then use OSS. Nobody forces you to use ALSA.
(Well, there _are_ many applications that require ALSA, but this won't
affect you much unless you want to create music.)

> If they are so bloody superior to OSS, how can one get the ALSA
> drivers to deliver? Maybe I have been unlucky enough to try them
> on precisely the sound boards where the OSS drivers do better?
> ... (CMPCI, Ensoniq AudioPCI, ESS18xx, VIA 82Cxxx and some
> SoundBlasters)

Those are indeed the drivers with the most problems, although most of
those are caused by cheap hardware.

> Do people here have had similar experiences?

The drivers for my hardware (ICH5+AD1985, YMF754, UA-1A, SC-8820,
Bt878, OPTi601+AD1848+YMF278B) work just fine.

Regards,
Clemens

• Previous message: Mikael Pettersson: "Re: Targa Visionary 811 laptop (Athlon64) experiences?"
• In reply to: JJS: "ALSA drivers"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]