OSSv4 and FreeBSD?

Roberth

Member


Messages: 66

Why doesn't FreeBSD adapt to OSSv4 as sound system? It broaden the sound card compability a lot.
 

trasz@

Active Member
Developer

Reaction score: 65
Messages: 218

OSSv4 is available in the Ports Collection, as audio/oss.
 

vermaden

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,180
Messages: 2,764

Roberth said:
Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?
What for if actual FreeBSD's OSS implementation works great?
 

brd@

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Developer

Reaction score: 85
Messages: 292

Roberth said:
Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?
There are probably licensing issues as well.
 

vermaden

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,180
Messages: 2,764

brd@ said:
There are probably licensing issues as well.
OSS4 from 4Front is also released on BSD license (along with CDDL and GPL).
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

>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

New Member


Messages: 10

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

Member

Reaction score: 5
Messages: 59

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

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

>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'.
 
OP
OP
R

Roberth

Member


Messages: 66

But why can't FreeBSD as mentioned, adapt the structure, and also adapt the drivers do furthere developement on them?
 

trasz@

Active Member
Developer

Reaction score: 65
Messages: 218

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.
 

aragon

Daemon

Reaction score: 279
Messages: 2,029

ALSA is a linuxism. I wouldn't hold your breath for it in BSD (outside of the emulation layer, at least).
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

Roberth said:
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

Daemon

Reaction score: 771
Messages: 1,620

tbyte said:
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

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 68
Messages: 841

With this change that is in progress for FreeBSD 8.0 RELEASE
OSSv4 becomes toy for kids.
 
Top