>
> IMHO we are suffering from the fact that we truely don't have an open
> source sound solution in the kernel. Instead we seem to have a
> 'come-on' for a commercial product.
I now, thanks to a little voodoo that was not self-evident, have all the
sound stuff working for me, even as autoloading modules. Hopefully if
someone is hacking the readme file they will consider including the
conf.modules hacks (revised version) that I posted in another message.
I am still concerned with the apparent precedent being set with
OSS/Free. I know of no other kernel component which has the sort of
shareware approach being used by OSS. There certainly seems to be a risk
of a Linux class-structure developing, in which the publicly-available
source is known to be inferior to a parallel private version. This seems
demoralising and really substantially at variance with Linux as a
whole. While I have no problem with private commercial distributions and
packages, I think that everything in the public source-tree should be
managed only with the public interest in mind. There is a clear potential
conflict-of-interest if the same person manages the inferior public and
superior private person. This can be and possibly is being avoided if an
individual not connected with the private effort manages the public
version.
--Jim <a href="http://as220.org/jb"> My Page: as220.org/jb </a>