FreeBSD amd64 GENERIC kernel

[Hans Petter Selasky]

Hi,

On 12/15/17 15:39, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> I'd appreciate it if you kept the discussion on sound and improve your
> English comprehension.

See below.

> I gave one example of a Chromium bug where they said they'd accept an OSS
> patch. I did not say janky audio in Chromium have anything to do with why I
> think OSS is a better choice for the default audio system.

Can you explain again using technical terms:

1) Why is 4Front's OSSv4 better than the in-base FreeBSD OSSv4?

2) Why do we need native OSSv4 support in Chromium?

3) Why can't we use the library provided by the port at 
/usr/ports/audio/alsa-lib to implement audio support in Chromium?

> You've made that assumption in this thread numerous times and I've ignored
> it because I wouldn't expect someone to be that dense.

Can you expand the word "that" in the sentence above? What are you 
referring to? I see no connection :-(

> It doesn't make sense because you fail to understand English, that's not my
> fault.

If you want to get a message through on this list keep it simple and 
stupid, KISS, for a start. I'm sorry my comment about your English was 
seen as a personal attack, "ad hominem". That was not my intention.

> 
> I have been porting synth tools to FreeBSD and I'd like to continue to port
> the software, implementing OSS backends for them based on the current
> upstream I am running into errors because of these so called "excellent"
> features which causes a lot of headache.

Exactly what are the "errors" you refer to in the paragraph above? Can 
you list them up one by one, including a brief explanation about the 
problem and the solution the way you see it?

> What's with the stuck up attitude? Stay focused on the issue at hand which
> is FreeBSD's fork of OSS makes it a challenge to implement software that
> sticks to the OSS standard.

Can you give a reference to the claim FreeBSD's OSSv4 is a fork of 
4Front's OSS?

> 
> There's nobody actively working on improving the audio situation on
> FreeBSD. 

Words like "nobody", "noone", "everyone", "everybody" and so on are 
frequently used to create a conflict. Is that what you are trying to do?

 > You have a user/developer who wants to do the work and you react
 > like it's some personal attack on your person to update the 
underlying code.

I'm sorry and I don't understand what you are trying to express in the 
paragraph above. Who are you addressing in the paragraph above? Is it 
me, HPS, or is it the "FreeBSD developers" in general?

What do you mean by "underlying code"? The underlying code of what? This 
is a half of a sentence in my opinion!

> these "clever" developers

Who are the "clever" developers you refer to? Can you list their names?

> Guess what, most of the clever features you talk about are in OSS4 and if
> they are not, they can still be added.

OSS4 what? Again, please expand the sentences so that I and others 
reading this list understand better what you actually mean. When I'm 
reading: "most of the clever features in OSS4" , it can mean multiple 
things. Either you refer to OSS4 as 4Front's opensound code, or OSS4 
means the OSS4 IOCTL API for interfacing with audio character devices. 
What do you mean? Do you mean the smart features are in 4Front's 
opensound code or do you mean all the smart features are in the OSS4 
IOCTL API?

> I'd really appreciate it if you refrained from your continued attempts at
> ad hominem against me and stick to code and a discussion around ideas and
> implementations.

Try to put in a few more words when explaining technical things in this 
thread. Try to limit the scope of what you are trying to say. I've tried 
as best as I can to point out where our communication stalls. This is 
not meant as a personal attack. Again, I'm having a hard time trying to 
fully understand what you mean or maybe someone else on this list will 
understand you better.

--HPS