PDA

View Full Version : OSSv4 and FreeBSD?


Roberth
November 16th, 2008, 20:46
Why doesn't FreeBSD adapt to OSSv4 as sound system? It broaden the sound card compability a lot.

trasz@
November 16th, 2008, 20:51
OSSv4 is available in the Ports Collection, as audio/oss.

Roberth
November 16th, 2008, 21:18
Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?

vermaden
November 16th, 2008, 21:37
Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?

What for if actual FreeBSD's OSS implementation works great?

oliverh
November 16th, 2008, 21:55
http://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley

As you can see OSS development in FreeBSD doesn't stand still.

brd@
November 16th, 2008, 22:30
Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?
There are probably licensing issues as well.

praxis
November 16th, 2008, 22:31
thanks, i was always wondering about this too.

vermaden
November 16th, 2008, 22:37
There are probably licensing issues as well.

OSS4 from 4Front is also released on BSD license (along with CDDL and GPL).

praxis
November 16th, 2008, 22:46
oss4 is released under the bsd license. http://www.4front-tech.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2411

Roberth
November 16th, 2008, 23:11
http://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley

As you can see OSS development in FreeBSD doesn't stand still.

Then why is there so few soundcards supported?

oliverh
November 16th, 2008, 23:38
>Then why is there so few soundcards supported?

Because of man power, time, documentation, hardware, money? Furthermore development of a sound system is more than just delivering drivers. First there is a proper infrastructure, then there are the drivers.

Just an example, my Soundblaster Audigy 4 is not supported by OSSv4 but by emu10kx.

praxis
November 17th, 2008, 00:57
So, why doesn't freebsd adopt oss4 infrastructure and then build specific drivers on top of that? It just seems oss4 provides a way for all unix/linux flavors to have the same api, which would possibly result in more cross-platform audio applications.
I by no means know the technicalities involved; I am just wondering.

Kitche
November 17th, 2008, 01:07
probably most likely the same reason why Sendmail is in base and not Postfix

but why complain if ossv4 is not in base, if it's in ports

oliverh
November 17th, 2008, 01:20
>So, why doesn't freebsd adopt oss4 infrastructure

Maybe it has got already a very good infrastructure? Ariff did a huge work on it. And this http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=14 could be a problem too. You could call OSSv4 development more or less 'dead'.

Roberth
November 17th, 2008, 12:59
But why can't FreeBSD as mentioned, adapt the structure, and also adapt the drivers do furthere developement on them?

trasz@
November 17th, 2008, 13:15
Because our own is much better. Things like resampling or software mixing are implemented much better in FreeBSD implementation of OSS than in OSSv4. Also, OSSv4 needs some abstraction layer on top of the actual operating system kernel APIs, as every operating system does things like locking in a different way. FreeBSD OSS is written to use the kernel interface directly.

Another thing is API. AFAIK there is ongoing work to support OSSv4 API in FreeBSD OSS implementation.

tbyte
November 17th, 2008, 15:05
And what about 5+1, 7+1 ... ALSA ?:)

aragon
November 17th, 2008, 18:39
ALSA is a linuxism. I wouldn't hold your breath for it in BSD (outside of the emulation layer, at least).

praxis
November 17th, 2008, 20:12
thanks trasz@, thats all I was wondering about.

oliverh
November 17th, 2008, 20:42
But why can't FreeBSD as mentioned, adapt the structure, and also adapt the drivers do furthere developement on them?

As trasz@ said and if there is anything useful in it I'm sure some FreeBSD dev will adopt it. Furthermore as far as I know not all of the drivers in OSSv4 are free.

Oko
November 19th, 2008, 17:19
And what about 5+1, 7+1 ... ALSA ?:)
Alsa will never be ported to any Unix:) This is why

http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5

Solaris port of OSS is really fantastic. I have not checked its license. If
it is CDDL obviously it is not an option but if it is an academic style license
(BSD, MIT) that should be worth of considering as a replacement for FreeBSD version
of oss.

richardpl
June 4th, 2009, 10:41
http://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley

As you can see OSS development in FreeBSD doesn't stand still.

What an obsolete information, I should noticed this much much before.

Look for development in 8.0: http://wiki.freebsd.org/8.0TODO

and http://people.freebsd.org/~ariff/SOUND_4.TXT

richardpl
June 4th, 2009, 10:43
With this change that is in progress for FreeBSD 8.0 RELEASE
OSSv4 becomes toy for kids.