[Bug 579300] Re: Please disable CONFIG_SOUND_OSS* and CONFIG_SND_*OSS*

[Mike Thomas]

Dear Mr Chen,

I have been following this thread with interest from two distinct points
of view:

- I am the author of an out-of-tree audio-video device driver which
works fine under Ubuntu 10.04 LTS but is silent under Ubuntu 10.10, and
I need to decide what to do about it:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/easycapdc60/develop

- I am also an ordinary Linux user who prefers things to Just Work, like
everybody else.

I have no special expertise in Linux audio, and not much interest in it
(the audio signal is merely a linear string of bytes - what's all the
fuss about?).  When I perform Google searches on the OSS/ALSA/PulseAudio
wars I see a lot of vituperative anecdotes, but none of these really
explain what's at stake, and I'm too lazy to trawl the specialist
mailing lists of the past five years to find the tiny minority of
postings that would throw light on strategy options for tackling
technical issues.  In my ignorance, then, I have the following
simplistic view of the present situation:

- OSS is bad, because of licensing issues in the past but more
importantly because it does not properly share the soundcard (and its
settings) between userspace applications.  Low latency though.

- ALSA is good, because it is politically correct and resolves the
soundcard sharing issue.  Latency might be a problem or might not.

- PulseAudio is popular with people who put together Linux distributions
(not only Ubuntu), but it is unclear to me what problem in ALSA it is
intended to solve.

If I decide that I need to add ALSA to my device driver, I'll do it.
Maybe a little grumpily, but it's no big deal.  To help me in making
that decision, I'd appreciate your brief comments on the following.

(1) If, as is likely, the outline of the distinction between OSS, ALSA
and PulseAudio that I've given above is wrong, can you give me some
links to authoritative articles which would put me right?  (Obviously
I'm not interested in superficial differences like desktop bling.)

(2) My impression is that PulseAudio (and to a lesser extent ALSA)
evolved as a response to the needs of audio "enthusiasts" - people
regularly using multiple audio applications simultaneously and with
high-specification, and possible multiple, soundcards.   My question is:
what proportion of the Linux userbase (or the Ubuntu userbase) are
"enthusiasts" in this sense?  It is useful to distinguish "enthusiasts"
from "single-application" users, who want audio to work out the box for
just one or maybe two applications, for example YouTube or some awesome
game, and do not care much about audio mixing or ways of preserving
audio settings.  I myself am a "one-application" user as defined here,
and I do not object to manually tweaking a few volume controls on the
rare occasions when it is necessary.  The question, then, amounts to:
what percentage of the userbase are "one-application" users?

(3) You mention in an earlier post that the objection to allowing OSS
emulation is that "it *prevents* all other programs from accessing the
sound device concurrently".  If I am a "one-application" user and I
choose to accept this limitation of OSS emulation, should I not be
allowed to do so?

(4) In the same post you state "Progress is always painful; some
people's use cases will always be underserved with the new
configuration. This is unfortunate,..." and in an earlier post you say
"some people will always be hurt by the eliminated backward
compatibility, but the long tail cannot be allowed to prevent
consolidation".  These are plausible arguments, and your unflinching
willingness to take casualties is admirable.  However, I think you'll
agree that for such arguments to achieve ready acceptance it is
necessary to demonstrate that the long tail really does contain the
"one-application" users whereas the main body of users are
"enthusiasts".  Otherwise the tail is wagging the dog.  So this question
is really the same as question (2) above:  where is the evidence that
the majority of the Ubuntu userbase are audio "enthusiasts"?

(5) My final question relates more generally to the decision-making
process within Ubuntu.  You and your colleagues have taken a decision to
remove a certain functionality from Ubuntu.  That decision may well be
correct - I don't have the knowledge to make an informed judgement on
it.  But the decision does have an adverse effect on a number of people,
and the reality is that you have exercised *power* over those people.
Not only over users by denying them a useful feature which they want,
but also over developers, who are in effect coerced into taking remedial
action or seeing their applications disabled.  Such power can, of
course, be justified if it does lead to the greater good of the greater
number, even if this is achieved only in the longer term.  But with
power normally comes a measure of accountability.  So my final question
is:  what is the mechanism within the Ubuntu management which ensures
that decisions of this kind, possibly beneficial but also potentially
damaging, are taken with proper regard for all the circumstances?

Mike

-- 
Please disable CONFIG_SOUND_OSS* and CONFIG_SND_*OSS*
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/579300
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Bugs, which is subscribed to linux in ubuntu.