I have, and compared to NT4, it is bloated, slow, and buggy. While many people have had a good experience with Win2K, it crashes on my system (which is probably a result of being contrained to only 300MHz) but worst of all, it really does eat as much RAM as people have complained. While NT4 is my second most selvete OS, Win2K is more bloated than even a full-fledged Linux/X4/KDE2 system.
My sig is not part of my post. I was only (partially, anyway) joking when I said that you should move to BeOS. It just doesn't fit for a lot of people. Still, you said you were looking for speed, and I pointed to it.
Either way, I have trouble believing that OS-X is faster than BeOS.
A) The BeOS microkernel is a good deal faster than Mach at IPC. You can run the benchmarks yourself, but BeOS can sustain even more msgs/sec than QNX.
B) Mach has a bunch of other problems, read the HURD dev-list.
C) They use a single server BSD/Mach approach. Such a system has traditionally been slower than a standard BSD macrokernel, and (for destkop performance at least) BeOS outperforms those.
D) They use a PDF rendrer in their graphics display. While it might be well-optimized and all, it will never be as fast as a standard bitmap system (unless it gets HW-accel)
E) The subjective performance reports of the public beta from Ars Technica are not that impressive.
Still, I've never actually used it, I'm just giving theoretical reasons on why it could be slower. Since I don't have a G4, I can't conduct decent benchmarks, and even if I did, the benchmarks would be ambigious because BeOS doesn't run on a G4 and OS-X doesn't run on Intel. However, you're welcome to run some tests yourself if you want to refute my arguement.
As I understand it, XFS is usually used in big-iron servers. I was wondering what its relevance was to smaller servers and workstation systems. I have seen that it has a very large code base, and a ton of features, so what are its memory/disk-space/performance characteristics. Is it slower/faster/about-the-same as ReiserFS, does it make your kernel huge or what? It seems that some people on this board have used XFS, so any insights would be appreciated.
Does that finally settle the debate over which has the cooler logo (Linux or BSD)? With Linux, you've got a penguin. With BSD, you've got girls in red latex. Which is cooler? Still, the Linux guys can come back with some black-and white nylon numbers...
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
I never said that Apple made bad computers. I'm just saying that the vargacies of the Intel architecture aren't bad enough to trade off the extra speed. Maybe I've had too easy of an OS experience (mainly NT4 and BeOS) but I never really have that many problems with PC hardware. Just keep on top of driver updates and buy quality hardware. Thus, any gain in elegence that I'd get from using a G4 really would be outweighed by the fact that it is slower and more expensive.
Who wants to port Wine to NT4? Seriously, though, I'm pissed. I thought I could get by without installing Win2K, but NOFL (a cool new game) is just so damn fun! (And DX7 only:(
It's not x86's fault, it's the OS. Invariably, it's the OS. I'm not bullshitting this. BeOS might have a lot of problems, it might have limited developer support, and its supporters might be holier-than-thou evangelists, but it has the sweetest hardware detection on this side of a Mac. BeOS is the closest you'll get to trouble free PC operation. The other day I was bitching with a PC in order to get a new PocketPC working, I could install outlook because the software kept crashing, and my stupid WinNT machine wouldn't place nice with my stupid Win98 machine (which itself would randomly reboot just to spite me.) So I just dropped everything, left my Micro$haft crap in its state of dissarry, and retreated into my blissful BeOS world of painless computing...
Re:it may be iX86, but it'll be Apple's iX86
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
Please never say "ix86" Linux packagers do it all the time and it drives me INSANE. It's either i386, or x86. Intel dropped the 'i' nomenclature after the 486, so x86 is best if you want to refer to the entire product line of chips. i386 should only be used if you're one of those numb-nut distro maintainers still compiling packages like KDE2 for i386 machines;)
BeOS 5.0 on a 1.2 GHz Athlon. Fastest thing you can get without moving up to an Alpha;)
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
PCs are still incredibly broken AT architecture machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can certify that PC hardware is indeed crap. Do any system-level hacking, and you find out exactly how crappy it is. Forget the interrupt limit, with PCs, you have to bother with things like I/O ports (most archs use mem-mapped I/O) odd methods of addressing hardware, complicated ASM, etc, dealing with the keyboard controller to enable over 1MB of memory, etc. HOWEVER
Apple has always, with a few notable exceptions, built first-rate hardware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Isn't true either. While the G4's and all may certainly be elegant and Mac's elegantly architectured, they're slow. Sure RISC helps out, but in the face of 1.2GHz clockspeeds (not to mention things like 3DNow! and SSE which level the field a lot) even 750MHz G4's are still slow. Especially considering the hefty price margin they carry. I like well-architectured stuff as much as the next guy, but for $3500, I want my system to be *faster* than the cheaper competition. Not to mention the fact that Apple is always several months (half a product cycle these days) behind in the introduction of new graphics chips. For the longest time, even in the days of the GeForce, G4's were coming with Rage 128's! Those are TNT-1 class chips! Just now they are getting GeForce2 MX class chips and making a big deal about it, and NV20 is on the horizon! If you're going to pay several hundred dollars more, you should at least get modern hardware!
Then that's more or less irrelevant. a.0.X release is nearly the same as a service pack. Tons of stuff breaks during a.0.X release (such as drivers, ahem) while service packs rarely (if you're lucky, some people aren't) break anything.
My point was that the person I was replying to was wrong, the Debian version is not the same as the kernel version. If it were, then Debian would end up using the 2.3-devel kernels with their next release;)
Except that they can. A much higher percentage of Win95 software runs on Win98 than 2.2 software runs (perfectly) on 2.4. The same is true in reverse (for the most part, discounting apps that use '98 specific APIs.) Of course, if your talking about NT and '95, you're on crack. Complaining that NT doesn't run all '95 apps is silly. They're totally different OSs.
Fully modularized code also means that in BeOS, my NVIDIA drivers are a mere untar away on any BeOS version, while in Linux, I almost invariably have to recompile the drivers. Face it, the Linux driver interface is broken. The sheer fact that NVIDIA has to go through so many hoops to release a binary driver shows just how broken it is.
While Microsoft isn't liable for the same reason that no software company is liable (years and years of crappy developers have made users come to *expect* buggy software) "liability" goes against the freedom of Linux. If you want Linux to remain free and democratic and all that shit, then you can't enforce product quality. That's why the LSB is such a bad idea. It forces vendors to conform and release good (or at least uniformly mediocre) products.
PS> Yea I know/. is the "I don't get subtly" capital of the world.
He he that's funny. "D3D isn't popular outside of the Windows game market." From a total-units-shipped standpoint, the Windows game market IS the 3D market. Second, your comments about D3D and OpenGL are entirely baseless. I don't want to resurrect the API wars, but DirectX8 not only has more features than OpenGL, but is faster, reasonably stable (given the limitations of its target platform) and has great developer support. Also, it is a no-extensible API. While hippies consider this a bad thing, they don't realize that extendible APIs suck for consumer space, where compatibility is paramount. Just take a look at www.opengl.org and look at all the extension announcements. You've got extensions from NVIDIA, ATI, SGI, etc, all doing the same thing in incomptible ways. That's a Bad Thing(TM) The minute an extension is released, you might was well forget about having a standardized API to begin with. Also troubling is the fact that the ARB is so damn complacent, and all of the new/cool features being released are implemented as propriatory extensions several months (or an entire product cycle for NVIDIA) before they are implemented as ARB extensions. To use a GeForce2 at 100%, for example, one has to use more than half a dozen NVIDIA propriatory exensions. Same thing with ATI and its Radeon extensions. Such uncontrolled "forking" of the OpenGL API effectively reduces its effectiveness as a cross-platform/cross-hardware interface. This isn't a problem in "big-iron" space, where hardware changes once every couple of years, but in consumer space, this is major. If Linux starts forking with some constraints (they don't have to be major, maybe just a certification or something) then you get a system that won't be as good as it could be.
Why is everyone so bloody afraid of heirarchial structures? I love being able to install a symlink to wherever Propaganda.debs choose to install themselves and have it all be reflected in a menu without a lot of fuss. Face it traditional config GUIs make you do more work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A) Not everyone want's to fuss and figure out exactly *where* those symlinks go. With a GUI, you don't need to read any docs. With the CLI (for want of a better term to reference "your way") you do. Also, free yourself from the notion that the software developer has *any* control over what goes on your system. " wherever Propaganda.debs choose to install themselves" is just wrong, autocratic, and MS-like. YOU should chose where your software goes, not the Debian guys, and not the package maintainer! Stand up for your rights and be counted, or be downtrodden like the rest of the software-industry-oppressed lusers!
If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do realize that you can't argue with a statement like that! It's like saying, "I've told you a million times..." It's not scientifically thought out, it's an exaggeration and all you are supposed to get from it is meaning, not detail.
well not just you, i bet MS would too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To each his own. However, "total freedom" is not always best for the user. People who seek complete freedom (anarchy) are just as bad as people who seek no freedom (autocracy) The happy balance lies closer to complete freedom, but some constraints must be imposed to insure quality of product.
Without ALSA lib how are you supposed to use the features of ALSA? Magic?
>>>>>>>>>>
I never said you weren't supposed to use ALSA. I have nothing AGAINST ALSA, or the method it uses. You (in your original post) said that the common API was libc. I said that extensions could be added via libs like ALSA, and that some of these exensions could be specific to particular forks. You can't read ANYTHING else from that aside from what I just said.
How is it "custom",
>>>>>>>>>>
It's not a standard part of the Linux kernel or OS as compared to something like libc. I think you'd get the meaning by now.
OSS is on the way out and ALSA the way in so ALSA has OSS support, ALSA lib is the way of the future. I have no idea what the hell your trying to say with the interface/lib thing...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
ESL classes failing you? How clear do I have to make it? I'm not making a comment about ALSA, I just used it as an example of a library that can be used to add an API to the kernel without going through libc.
I never said that it was. The problems in the US are not so much due to industry, but irresponsible people. (Believe it or not, nobody is causing moral, social, and environmental decay but the people themselves. I love this country, but to tell the truth, the prevalent thinking that the current situation is anybody's fault but their own is hugely irresponsible. That's why George Bush's moral message is such a load of bull. The government can't fix society, only the people can.) True, industry in this country does pollute a lot, but that's because there is a lot of it. If you take a look at industry in other countries, they don't cause as much pollution, but only because there is less of it. In Asia, for example, the taxi industry often doesn't install correct air control systems in their scooters (those of us who've been there know what I'm talking about;) and they use very poorly refined fuel. While those things don't cause as much polllution as all of Los Angles, they make more per unit. The reason they do so is because those countries simply don't have enough money to make things more efficient. (Kinda like the US at the turn of the century.) I'd argue that by building industry first, and stabilizing the economy, you end up (eventually) being cleaner than if you try minimize industry to begin with.
Careful, you're idealism is showing. If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
Then why GPL the kernel if you won't let people use it as they wish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Freedom is one thing. Success and quality is another. Take your pick. I'd argue that a slight limit in freedom is worth big gains in quality and compatibility. But that's just me;)
(1) How are the programers creating " proprietory interfaces", IT'S OPEN SOURCE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe prorpietory was the wrong word (though anyone with some sense would have picked up what I meant based on the context of the post.) I meant that they can create interfaces specific to a particular kernel. While this is sometimes necessary, programmers in general do it far more often than they need to.
(2) ALSA or Advanced Linux Sound Arch. is slated to be the replacement to OSS lite in the current kernel. There is NOTHING "proprietory" (there's that word again...) about it, it's developmental and doesn't belong in the stable tree so the author kept it out as a seperate project. BTW- it will probably be merged in 2.5 or so the rumor goes....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you have any semblence of reading comprehension? I said they could make propriatory interfaces (admitedly the wrong word) , maybe through a custom library like ALSA does. I said that ALSA was custom library (as opposed to a standard one like libc), not that it was a proprietory interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you're not assigning *anything* as the '==' is a comparison operator, not an assignment operator.
Uh, maybe because Linux isn't about stupid Microsoft-ish tricks?
I have, and compared to NT4, it is bloated, slow, and buggy. While many people have had a good experience with Win2K, it crashes on my system (which is probably a result of being contrained to only 300MHz) but worst of all, it really does eat as much RAM as people have complained. While NT4 is my second most selvete OS, Win2K is more bloated than even a full-fledged Linux/X4/KDE2 system.
My sig is not part of my post. I was only (partially, anyway) joking when I said that you should move to BeOS. It just doesn't fit for a lot of people. Still, you said you were looking for speed, and I pointed to it.
Either way, I have trouble believing that OS-X is faster than BeOS.
A) The BeOS microkernel is a good deal faster than Mach at IPC. You can run the benchmarks yourself, but BeOS can sustain even more msgs/sec than QNX.
B) Mach has a bunch of other problems, read the HURD dev-list.
C) They use a single server BSD/Mach approach. Such a system has traditionally been slower than a standard BSD macrokernel, and (for destkop performance at least) BeOS outperforms those.
D) They use a PDF rendrer in their graphics display. While it might be well-optimized and all, it will never be as fast as a standard bitmap system (unless it gets HW-accel)
E) The subjective performance reports of the public beta from Ars Technica are not that impressive.
Still, I've never actually used it, I'm just giving theoretical reasons on why it could be slower. Since I don't have a G4, I can't conduct decent benchmarks, and even if I did, the benchmarks would be ambigious because BeOS doesn't run on a G4 and OS-X doesn't run on Intel. However, you're welcome to run some tests yourself if you want to refute my arguement.
As I understand it, XFS is usually used in big-iron servers. I was wondering what its relevance was to smaller servers and workstation systems. I have seen that it has a very large code base, and a ton of features, so what are its memory/disk-space/performance characteristics. Is it slower/faster/about-the-same as ReiserFS, does it make your kernel huge or what? It seems that some people on this board have used XFS, so any insights would be appreciated.
Does that finally settle the debate over which has the cooler logo (Linux or BSD)? With Linux, you've got a penguin. With BSD, you've got girls in red latex. Which is cooler? Still, the Linux guys can come back with some black-and white nylon numbers...
I never said that Apple made bad computers. I'm just saying that the vargacies of the Intel architecture aren't bad enough to trade off the extra speed. Maybe I've had too easy of an OS experience (mainly NT4 and BeOS) but I never really have that many problems with PC hardware. Just keep on top of driver updates and buy quality hardware. Thus, any gain in elegence that I'd get from using a G4 really would be outweighed by the fact that it is slower and more expensive.
Who wants to port Wine to NT4? Seriously, though, I'm pissed. I thought I could get by without installing Win2K, but NOFL (a cool new game) is just so damn fun! (And DX7 only :(
It's not x86's fault, it's the OS. Invariably, it's the OS. I'm not bullshitting this. BeOS might have a lot of problems, it might have limited developer support, and its supporters might be holier-than-thou evangelists, but it has the sweetest hardware detection on this side of a Mac. BeOS is the closest you'll get to trouble free PC operation. The other day I was bitching with a PC in order to get a new PocketPC working, I could install outlook because the software kept crashing, and my stupid WinNT machine wouldn't place nice with my stupid Win98 machine (which itself would randomly reboot just to spite me.) So I just dropped everything, left my Micro$haft crap in its state of dissarry, and retreated into my blissful BeOS world of painless computing...
Please never say "ix86" Linux packagers do it all the time and it drives me INSANE. It's either i386, or x86. Intel dropped the 'i' nomenclature after the 486, so x86 is best if you want to refer to the entire product line of chips. i386 should only be used if you're one of those numb-nut distro maintainers still compiling packages like KDE2 for i386 machines ;)
BeOS 5.0 on a 1.2 GHz Athlon. Fastest thing you can get without moving up to an Alpha ;)
PCs are still incredibly broken AT architecture machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can certify that PC hardware is indeed crap. Do any system-level hacking, and you find out exactly how crappy it is. Forget the interrupt limit, with PCs, you have to bother with things like I/O ports (most archs use mem-mapped I/O) odd methods of addressing hardware, complicated ASM, etc, dealing with the keyboard controller to enable over 1MB of memory, etc. HOWEVER
Apple has always, with a few notable exceptions, built first-rate hardware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Isn't true either. While the G4's and all may certainly be elegant and Mac's elegantly architectured, they're slow. Sure RISC helps out, but in the face of 1.2GHz clockspeeds (not to mention things like 3DNow! and SSE which level the field a lot) even 750MHz G4's are still slow. Especially considering the hefty price margin they carry. I like well-architectured stuff as much as the next guy, but for $3500, I want my system to be *faster* than the cheaper competition. Not to mention the fact that Apple is always several months (half a product cycle these days) behind in the introduction of new graphics chips. For the longest time, even in the days of the GeForce, G4's were coming with Rage 128's! Those are TNT-1 class chips! Just now they are getting GeForce2 MX class chips and making a big deal about it, and NV20 is on the horizon! If you're going to pay several hundred dollars more, you should at least get modern hardware!
You caon't have it both ways. Linux is either about Open-ness, or quality. Sometimes the two coincide, sometimes they don't. Take your pick.
Then that's more or less irrelevant. a .0.X release is nearly the same as a service pack. Tons of stuff breaks during a .0.X release (such as drivers, ahem) while service packs rarely (if you're lucky, some people aren't) break anything.
My point was that the person I was replying to was wrong, the Debian version is not the same as the kernel version. If it were, then Debian would end up using the 2.3-devel kernels with their next release ;)
So 2.3 will use a devel kernel?
Except that they can. A much higher percentage of Win95 software runs on Win98 than 2.2 software runs (perfectly) on 2.4. The same is true in reverse (for the most part, discounting apps that use '98 specific APIs.) Of course, if your talking about NT and '95, you're on crack. Complaining that NT doesn't run all '95 apps is silly. They're totally different OSs.
Fully modularized code also means that in BeOS, my NVIDIA drivers are a mere untar away on any BeOS version, while in Linux, I almost invariably have to recompile the drivers. Face it, the Linux driver interface is broken. The sheer fact that NVIDIA has to go through so many hoops to release a binary driver shows just how broken it is.
While Microsoft isn't liable for the same reason that no software company is liable (years and years of crappy developers have made users come to *expect* buggy software) "liability" goes against the freedom of Linux. If you want Linux to remain free and democratic and all that shit, then you can't enforce product quality. That's why the LSB is such a bad idea. It forces vendors to conform and release good (or at least uniformly mediocre) products.
/. is the "I don't get subtly" capital of the world.
PS> Yea I know
He he that's funny. "D3D isn't popular outside of the Windows game market." From a total-units-shipped standpoint, the Windows game market IS the 3D market. Second, your comments about D3D and OpenGL are entirely baseless. I don't want to resurrect the API wars, but DirectX8 not only has more features than OpenGL, but is faster, reasonably stable (given the limitations of its target platform) and has great developer support. Also, it is a no-extensible API. While hippies consider this a bad thing, they don't realize that extendible APIs suck for consumer space, where compatibility is paramount. Just take a look at www.opengl.org and look at all the extension announcements. You've got extensions from NVIDIA, ATI, SGI, etc, all doing the same thing in incomptible ways. That's a Bad Thing(TM) The minute an extension is released, you might was well forget about having a standardized API to begin with. Also troubling is the fact that the ARB is so damn complacent, and all of the new/cool features being released are implemented as propriatory extensions several months (or an entire product cycle for NVIDIA) before they are implemented as ARB extensions. To use a GeForce2 at 100%, for example, one has to use more than half a dozen NVIDIA propriatory exensions. Same thing with ATI and its Radeon extensions. Such uncontrolled "forking" of the OpenGL API effectively reduces its effectiveness as a cross-platform/cross-hardware interface. This isn't a problem in "big-iron" space, where hardware changes once every couple of years, but in consumer space, this is major. If Linux starts forking with some constraints (they don't have to be major, maybe just a certification or something) then you get a system that won't be as good as it could be.
Why is everyone so bloody afraid of heirarchial structures? I love being able to install a symlink to wherever Propaganda.debs choose to install themselves and have it all be reflected in a menu without a lot of fuss. Face it traditional config GUIs make you do more work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A) Not everyone want's to fuss and figure out exactly *where* those symlinks go. With a GUI, you don't need to read any docs. With the CLI (for want of a better term to reference "your way") you do. Also, free yourself from the notion that the software developer has *any* control over what goes on your system. " wherever Propaganda.debs choose to install themselves" is just wrong, autocratic, and MS-like. YOU should chose where your software goes, not the Debian guys, and not the package maintainer! Stand up for your rights and be counted, or be downtrodden like the rest of the software-industry-oppressed lusers!
In OpenGL? Most stuff doesn't even access data at the pixel level, just the normalized coordinate level You draw a triangle and it's
glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES);
glVertex2f(2.0,3.0);
glVertex2f(2,2,3,5);
glVertex2f(2.9,3.9);
...etc...
glEnd();
In that bit of code, you could have drawn a 500 pixel triangle with only a few lines.
If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do realize that you can't argue with a statement like that! It's like saying, "I've told you a million times..." It's not scientifically thought out, it's an exaggeration and all you are supposed to get from it is meaning, not detail.
well not just you, i bet MS would too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To each his own. However, "total freedom" is not always best for the user. People who seek complete freedom (anarchy) are just as bad as people who seek no freedom (autocracy) The happy balance lies closer to complete freedom, but some constraints must be imposed to insure quality of product.
Without ALSA lib how are you supposed to use the features of ALSA? Magic?
>>>>>>>>>>
I never said you weren't supposed to use ALSA. I have nothing AGAINST ALSA, or the method it uses. You (in your original post) said that the common API was libc. I said that extensions could be added via libs like ALSA, and that some of these exensions could be specific to particular forks. You can't read ANYTHING else from that aside from what I just said.
How is it "custom",
>>>>>>>>>>
It's not a standard part of the Linux kernel or OS as compared to something like libc. I think you'd get the meaning by now.
OSS is on the way out and ALSA the way in so ALSA has OSS support, ALSA lib is the way of the future. I have no idea what the hell your trying to say with the interface/lib thing...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
ESL classes failing you? How clear do I have to make it? I'm not making a comment about ALSA, I just used it as an example of a library that can be used to add an API to the kernel without going through libc.
I never said that it was. The problems in the US are not so much due to industry, but irresponsible people. (Believe it or not, nobody is causing moral, social, and environmental decay but the people themselves. I love this country, but to tell the truth, the prevalent thinking that the current situation is anybody's fault but their own is hugely irresponsible. That's why George Bush's moral message is such a load of bull. The government can't fix society, only the people can.) True, industry in this country does pollute a lot, but that's because there is a lot of it. If you take a look at industry in other countries, they don't cause as much pollution, but only because there is less of it. In Asia, for example, the taxi industry often doesn't install correct air control systems in their scooters (those of us who've been there know what I'm talking about ;) and they use very poorly refined fuel. While those things don't cause as much polllution as all of Los Angles, they make more per unit. The reason they do so is because those countries simply don't have enough money to make things more efficient. (Kinda like the US at the turn of the century.) I'd argue that by building industry first, and stabilizing the economy, you end up (eventually) being cleaner than if you try minimize industry to begin with.
Careful, you're idealism is showing. If everything was as rosy as you told it, then computing would never have any problems!
;)
Then why GPL the kernel if you won't let people use it as they wish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Freedom is one thing. Success and quality is another. Take your pick. I'd argue that a slight limit in freedom is worth big gains in quality and compatibility. But that's just me
(1) How are the programers creating " proprietory interfaces", IT'S OPEN SOURCE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe prorpietory was the wrong word (though anyone with some sense would have picked up what I meant based on the context of the post.) I meant that they can create interfaces specific to a particular kernel. While this is sometimes necessary, programmers in general do it far more often than they need to.
(2) ALSA or Advanced Linux Sound Arch. is slated to be the replacement to OSS lite in the current kernel. There is NOTHING "proprietory" (there's that word again...) about it, it's developmental and doesn't belong in the stable tree so the author kept it out as a seperate project. BTW- it will probably be merged in 2.5 or so the rumor goes....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you have any semblence of reading comprehension? I said they could make propriatory interfaces (admitedly the wrong word) , maybe through a custom library like ALSA does. I said that ALSA was custom library (as opposed to a standard one like libc), not that it was a proprietory interface.