# OSSv4 and FreeBSD?



## Roberth (Nov 16, 2008)

Why doesn't FreeBSD adapt to OSSv4 as sound system? It broaden the sound card compability a lot.


----------



## trasz@ (Nov 16, 2008)

OSSv4 is available in the Ports Collection, as audio/oss.


----------



## Roberth (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?


----------



## vermaden (Nov 16, 2008)

Roberth said:
			
		

> Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?



What for if actual FreeBSD's OSS implementation works great?


----------



## oliverh (Nov 16, 2008)

http://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley

As you can see OSS development in FreeBSD doesn't stand still.


----------



## brd@ (Nov 16, 2008)

Roberth said:
			
		

> Yes I know, but why not use it as default sound system?


There are probably licensing issues as well.


----------



## praxis (Nov 16, 2008)

thanks, i was always wondering about this too.


----------



## vermaden (Nov 16, 2008)

brd@ said:
			
		

> There are probably licensing issues as well.



OSS4 from 4Front is also released on BSD license (along with CDDL and GPL).


----------



## praxis (Nov 16, 2008)

oss4 is released under the bsd license. http://www.4front-tech.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2411


----------



## Roberth (Nov 16, 2008)

oliverh said:
			
		

> http://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley
> 
> As you can see OSS development in FreeBSD doesn't stand still.



Then why is there so few soundcards supported?


----------



## oliverh (Nov 16, 2008)

>Then why is there so few soundcards supported?

Because of man power, time, documentation, hardware, money? Furthermore development of a sound system is more than just delivering drivers. First there is a proper infrastructure, then there are the drivers.

Just an example, my Soundblaster Audigy 4 is not supported by OSSv4 but by emu10kx.


----------



## praxis (Nov 16, 2008)

So, why doesn't freebsd adopt oss4 infrastructure and then build specific drivers on top of that?  It just seems oss4 provides a way for all unix/linux flavors to have the same api, which would possibly result in more cross-platform audio applications. 
   I by no means know the technicalities involved; I am just wondering.


----------



## Kitche (Nov 17, 2008)

probably most likely the same reason why Sendmail is in base and not Postfix

but why complain if ossv4 is not in base, if it's in ports


----------



## oliverh (Nov 17, 2008)

>So, why doesn't freebsd adopt oss4 infrastructure

Maybe it has got already a very good infrastructure? Ariff did a huge work on it. And this http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=14 could be a problem too. You could call OSSv4 development more or less 'dead'.


----------



## Roberth (Nov 17, 2008)

But why can't FreeBSD as mentioned, adapt the structure, and also adapt the drivers do furthere developement on them?


----------



## trasz@ (Nov 17, 2008)

Because our own is much better.  Things like resampling or software mixing are implemented much better in FreeBSD implementation of OSS than in OSSv4.  Also, OSSv4 needs some abstraction layer on top of the actual operating system kernel APIs, as every operating system does things like locking in a different way.  FreeBSD OSS is written to use the kernel interface directly.

Another thing is API.  AFAIK there is ongoing work to support OSSv4 API in FreeBSD OSS implementation.


----------



## tbyte (Nov 17, 2008)

And what about 5+1, 7+1 ... ALSA ?


----------



## aragon (Nov 17, 2008)

ALSA is a linuxism.  I wouldn't hold your breath for it in BSD (outside of the emulation layer, at least).


----------



## praxis (Nov 17, 2008)

thanks trasz@, thats all I was wondering about.


----------



## oliverh (Nov 17, 2008)

Roberth said:
			
		

> But why can't FreeBSD as mentioned, adapt the structure, and also adapt the drivers do furthere developement on them?



As trasz@ said and if there is anything useful in it I'm sure some FreeBSD dev will adopt it. Furthermore as far as I know not all of the drivers in OSSv4 are free.


----------



## Oko (Nov 19, 2008)

tbyte said:
			
		

> And what about 5+1, 7+1 ... ALSA ?


Alsa will never be ported to any Unix This is why

http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5

Solaris port of OSS is really fantastic. I have not checked its license. If 
it is CDDL obviously it is not an option but if it is an academic style license 
(BSD, MIT) that should be worth of considering as a replacement for FreeBSD version
of oss.


----------



## richardpl (Jun 4, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> http://wiki.freebsd.org/RyanBeasley
> 
> As you can see OSS development in FreeBSD doesn't stand still.



What an obsolete information, I should noticed this much much before.

Look for development in 8.0: http://wiki.freebsd.org/8.0TODO

and  http://people.freebsd.org/~ariff/SOUND_4.TXT


----------



## richardpl (Jun 4, 2009)

With this change that is in progress for FreeBSD 8.0 RELEASE
OSSv4 _becomes_ toy for kids.


----------

