Systemd Is Now One Year Old; Why You Should Use It

[Chewi]

i have a xfi hd from auz3n , with fedora 14 it plays only stereo despite i use Digital Output / S/PDIF .
do you think i would get 5.1 if i remove pulse audio ?

what kind of command line i should use ?

When this happens, what are you using to produce the sound? Any particular player? What is the media, a DVD?

[mdias]

Been using systemd for the past few days, and it's working wonders!

I also use pulseaudio which solved all the problems I used to have* with a pure ALSA solution, I also use JACK from time to time (I use "pasuspender -- jackd" to make my life easier with this) with a DIY MIDI device, and I'm currently an happy user.

* problems included different channel mappings with different apps, audio device busy errors, no easy way to switch between 2.0 and 5.1 output...

[V!NCENT]

He may be confused with the E-mu and Ensoniq acquisitions.

No I'm not. As much as DOS wasn't initialy made but bought by Microsoft, Creative didn't the create the Soundblaster.

Unless you think that comming up with a name equals creating a product...

[locovaca]

No I'm not. As much as DOS wasn't initialy made but bought by Microsoft, Creative didn't the create the Soundblaster.

Unless you think that comming up with a name equals creating a product...

Then who created it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Blaster

Philips? At any rate, we're talking 25 year old ISA technology here.

[V!NCENT]

The Sound Blaster was an AdLib clone and the PCI-range where a rebranded E-mu line of cards. Not realy original, is it?

[locovaca]

The Sound Blaster was an AdLib clone and the PCI-range where a rebranded E-mu line of cards. Not realy original, is it?

So I guess AMD's chips are copies of Intels because they're x86 compatible too? Simply building a card that works with existing code is not a clone. Soundblaster was far more capable than any Adlib card.

E-mu never had a sound card until they were acquired by Creative. Creative took E-mu's IP used for standalone synthesizers and molded it into a sound card. The E-mu PC chips were created 100% under Creative's ownership of E-mu, hence, they are Creative's original product.

[Hephasteus]

Isn't D-Bus hate getting a bit old now? It's obviously here to stay. I'm not clear on the reasons against it. Breaking "everything is a file" is probably one of them. If it were that easy to map it onto a filesystem, surely someone would have done it by now? I think speed was another but I don't know if that's still an issue. What do you propose instead?

I hate d-bus. Why do I hate it? Because well it's probably going to turn into windows active x and single handedly turn linux into a smoking pile of dog shit.

I mean seriously. There needs to be a lot more information about stuff because people are paranoid because well not much good is coming out of all this. I mean we get lots and lots of system d and d-bus and python out the ying yang and so very very little in graphics and x. And to top it off they change gnome even though people don't want it changed. And they've redone the network manager like 20 frikkin times in the last 5 years.

I do some tutorials with python and most of them are so full of language and number analysis it just makes my skin crawl. What the hell do people want to do with this stuff? I study high frequency trading and they keep hiring people with heavy python experience. Trying to kill off linux and make macintosh the new PC and it's the only damn thing out there with more market share than linux that's just loaded to the teeth with python. And I'm wondering what wack ass psychotics with factorial pricing algorythms converting exchange data into factorial number spaces are doing with this goddamn shit.

And now system d wants to make sure your computer is running on every core from the get go making background processes all that much easier.

I sit and I listen to people say the absolute nutiest shit on an overlcocking board. I see them post screenshot after screen shot of frikkin nvidia 460s and 560ti's 570s dual sli 5870s pumping damn near solid 100 percent gpu usages under tiny ass little games. I run them under windows xp and the machine just frikkin chews them up spits them out and doesn't touch anything but 50 to 70 percent cpu and gpu usages while their machines are twice the cpu power and 3 times the gpu power and they are puking their goddamn guts out all over this code. First I start thinking the gpu drivers are just monkeyhammered and windows has a software rasterizer block built in just like linux and all their gpus are screwing up too many code blocks and punching it out on the cpu as software rasterizer subprocesses.

That leads nowhere and I decide to start checking latencies with a DCP latency analyzer and windows 7 is a goddamn latency nightmare. It's getting 80 microsecond response times on super fast high end systems while most systems have one or more fancy new gadget driver puking all over it and it's just a frikkin miracle they can use it to web browse even though they got it hooked up to a 700 watt power supply and it strains the turbines at the nuclear power plant so badly their dry steam turns to wet steam and chews their blades up like a rat on piece of wood. I cant get xp to screw up that bad and be that unresponsive on a 1ghz thunderbird processor even if i used the lousy drivers that shipped with components. So they've got all these retards parroting and memeing more cpu bigger gpu more cpu bigger gpu and it's still not making a damn dent. People are rolling out game after game that is stutter microstutter failboat code and attempting to make it work for 6 months and it still works so horribly people end up just ridiculing the game instead of trying to make it work any longer. How the hell can you have stream technology if your goddamn streaming engine is taking dirt naps at any frikkin load. And if you search around you'll find plenty of windows 7 systems pulling 100 percent cpu load just watching youtube videos. Only 90 percent of their userbase are too stupid to know its happening much less file a bug report about it. People spent 6 frikkin months yapping about gta iv being a cpu devourer and you needs an intel 920 940 to run it and it frikkin runs on a console that has a 750 mhz pentium iii goddamn coppermine in it.

Now windows 7 is NOT an improvement over these latency problems windows vista brought in. It's an EXTENSION of the problems and it's taken to the absolute extreme of what is normal cpu's and gpu's shipping with it pre loaded. In other words windows 7 will slow the system down enough to soak up whatever cpu and gpu you buy on it and leave you wanting more and more and more. So I'm wondering what the hells going on because they took it too damn far. Why would microsoft intentionally pull a dick in the dirt move like this and intentionally try to hand the reigns over to apple knowing huge portions of the population will refuse to jump anyway nor grow a vagina in their skull that continually queefs I'd like to hear some marketing news Steve.

And the same sick psychos that work at intel and ibm and apple are working on linux. So ya. D-bus, system d. You better explain that shit and how it affects operation of the computer and performance and security. And you better explain it good if you want people to trust it and adopt it, before it ends up in the not yet adopted kitty tries harder club at the frikkin kennel waiting for the times up injection.

So until someone sufficiently and adequately eases my fears about system d making linux another goddamn active x hack fest I don't like it. Just saying you're crazy and paranoid isn't going to get the job done either. I hear that all the time. It's how I sucker people into fights I know they can't win. Linux had better get the job done because quite frankly people don't have anywhere else to turn to that isn't buried under a mountain of bullcrap and self serving interests. And I don't want the discovery process wrapped up in polite conversation and gentle proddings and herdings. I want name calling insults and people writing system-d and d-bus snooper programs to keep everybody honest. There's lemon in the coolaide. I can taste it.
[Flame off]

[V!NCENT]

So I guess AMD's chips are copies of Intels because they're x86 compatible too? Simply building a card that works with existing code is not a clone. Soundblaster was far more capable than any Adlib card.

Er... yes. Quoting Wikipedia:

In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the Am286 under the same arrangement, but Intel canceled the agreement in 1986 and refused to convey technical details of the i386 part.

So they may differ now, but AMD did not create x86.

Sound Blaster was only far more capable in the sense that they had 3 extra voices and an integrated MIDI port + controller that they wrongly labeled as being a sound processor.

E-mu never had a sound card until they were acquired by Creative. Creative took E-mu's IP used for standalone synthesizers and molded it into a sound card. The E-mu PC chips were created 100% under Creative's ownership of E-mu, hence, they are Creative's original product.

I'm confused with Ensoniq. Ensonique was bought in 1998 and their PCI cards started 1994.

BTW Did Oracle create OpenOffice.org? They seem to have bought it...

[locovaca]

Sound Blaster was only far more capable in the sense that they had 3 extra voices and an integrated MIDI port + controller that they wrongly labeled as being a sound processor.

Again, simply making a device a drop-in replacement doesn't make that a clone. I suppose ICC is a clone of GCC?

I'm confused with Ensoniq. Ensonique was bought in 1998 and their PCI cards started 1994.

Creative's first PCI card was released in August 98 and had nothing in common with the Ensoniq architecture. Ensoniq was purchased for their patents and DOS support. Ensoniq IP was rebranded as SoundBlaster initially and then reworked into AC-97 embedded solutions.

[V!NCENT]

Again, simply making a device a drop-in replacement doesn't make that a clone. I suppose ICC is a clone of GCC?

A clone of the first compiler? Essentialy yes... Not GCC. Not saying it's a bad thing. Maybe we are not on the same page here? ;-)

Ensoniq IP was rebranded as SoundBlaster initially and then reworked into AC-97 embedded solutions.

Reworked into AC'97, or as AC'97?