Andrew Nesbit wrote:
> 1. Firstly, ALSA is under the GPL, and so a port could not be merged
> into the source tree.  An LKM would be the only way around this.

I'm personally not interested in something usable as LKM only.
I do not want any GPL'ed drivers in the tree.[*] [**]
 
> 2. Linux has its low-latency scheduling patches, and this is very
> attractive for people doing real-time audio work.  How does NetBSD
> compare here?

Any URL to what are these? Are they integrated into Linux kernel?
 
> 3. Would this actually be worthwhile from a practical point of view;
> would it encourage people to use BSD for digital audio work, or is the
> momentum in Linux just far too strong?

It's not like ALSA would be the only way to achieve good audio
quality. We have fairly good drivers for many sound cards available today.
Our audio interface is fairly sane, and quite compatible with Solaris/SunOS
(with some extensions). It has some limitations, but some of these
are going to be addressed in not-too-distant future.

I think the efford would be better spent writing a userland glue
library similar to libossaudio, to make eventual porting of programs
using ALSA API easier. It would be useful to analyze and summarize
the features of ALSA API, and discuss possible good ideas here.

Jaromir

 [*] Not to mention that most Linux drivers are utter crap to read.
     ALSA might be better than average Linux drivers, but our drivers are
     far more readable than Linux ones generally.
 [**] Note we don't have support for loadable hw drivers in LKM framework ATM.
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.NetBSD.org/Ports/i386/ps2.html
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-