Vote for a MM system (Was: Re: summary of the aKademy meetings)

[Eray Ozkural]

On Thursday 09 September 2004 23:06, Christian Esken wrote:
> On Thursday 09 September 2004 15:35, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>  > On Thursday 09 September 2004 02:09, Christian Esken wrote:
> > > Thus my vote will go to a MM API, that supports a MM backend system
> > > that fulfills all of the following properties: a) Can NOW play audio
> > > and video b) Is quite stable (running and API-wise)
> > > c) Is available NOW
> > > d) Is available NOW on multiple Operating Systems (at least Linux,
> > > Solaris, *BSD [preferably FreeBSD] ). e) Is NOW maintained by a large
> > > developer base f) has an OpenSource license
> > > g) has an open development mentality (stuff like "open" development
> > > lists, "open" bug system, ...)
> >
> > You sound exactly like that NMM guy that listed things they did well as
> > the base requirements..
>
> Well, I don't have any sound system at all running on my main computer
> (arts does not work at all), and I am not affiliated to any sound system
> development. I feel in fact quite neutral in terms of which MM backend KDE
> will chose.
>
> And I am really aware that stating 7 points as very important is much. But,
> what would you say: Which of my stated requirements are not important for a
> KDE MM backend? Which important thing have I forgotten?

I personally want an option to completely turn off those software mixers or 
network whatevers, and use the hardware ones, when available. That's how 
pro-audio works!

Regards,

-- 
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara  KDE Project: http://www.kde.org
http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo  Malfunction: http://malfunct.iuma.com
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C