Re: Autoloading of OSS sound modules (ALSA vs. OSS)

The Doctor What (docwhat@gerf.org)
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:59:29 -0500


On Sun, Jul 12, 1998 at 08:20:49PM -0400, Anthony DeStefano wrote:
> post-install sound modprobe sb
>
> but all i get is post-install /lib/modules/2.1.106/misc/sound.o failed in
> my logs.

Well...I spent a lot of time working to get my AWE32 working under OSS
using "autoloading". I mean *lots* I went to every web page that was
brought up under altavista, etc.

In the end:
To get OSS to work, I just wrote out the commands in a script and
ran it when I started up the OS. I left the configuration stuff in
conf.modules. I didn't revert to using it compiled *into* the kernel
because I hated having to remember what DMA buffers and IRQs I had it set
to and the linux configuration stuff always lost these settings for sound.

In the *real* end:
I got ALSA (http://alsa.jcu.cz/) and it works great. The source
code is much more readable, it's easy to configure and it's GPL with all
the cool options.
The only downside is it doesn't support MIDI and (of course) the
AWE sound font stuff. Not a huge deal at the moment.

I'm just curious, what's the opinion of the other kernel hackers regarding
ALSA vs. OSS?

Ciao

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html