On Tue, 23.09.08 15:25, Les Mikesell (lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: >>> No, it sucks just as much when itunes does it. You expect that kind of >>> stuff from Apple who only has a short history of multi-user machines and >>> who would really rather sell you an apple tv or ipod with dock that you >>> can dedicate to driving your speakers, though. Linux has always been >>> multi-user and doesn't have any such excuses for arbitrarily >>> disconnecting >>> devices. >> "arbitrarily"? > > Arbitrarily, as in guessing who should have exclusive access based on > nothing that particularly relates to the specific audio device. It is no > more right than automatically killing scheduled tape backups would be > because someone else logged in on a keyboard near the tape device. We generally consider speakers/mikes/headphones to be part of the workplace of the user, i.e. together with mouse/keyboard/screen we switch them over when the active session changes. And again, that's the way *I* think it makes the most sense. Of course, you are free to consider audio to be hw that is completely detached from sessions. I disagree. Most of the RH engineers I talked to about this agree with how *I* see things. (And Apple too, ...) Nonetheless, I do see some sense in the way you want to use the audio devices. However, I don't think that would be the normal use-case, and I also don't think that defaulting to this insecure configuration would be a good choice. So, let's end this discussion right now. I did acknowledge the validity of your usecase, although I priorize a different one. Supporting your preferred way of doing session switching for audio is on my TODO list (although way at the end). That's the most you will get from me. If you disagrees with my priorities, then bad luck, you won't be able to change them. BTW, Free Software is about scratching your own itches. Apparently this functionality is very important to you, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion again and again and again. Hence: I AM HAPPY TO MERGE YOUR PATCHES (if they are good)! >> Oh man. Claiming that things are right because Linux always did it >> this way is not very convincing. > > Linux what? The kernel doesn't make arbitrary access decisions by itself, > does it? Oh man, stop it. Those decisions are not arbitrary. They make sense. (Except maybe for you) >>> Doesn't the kernel have a mechanism for exclusive locks on devices if >>> someone wants to have exclusive access? It's not all that difficult to >>> eavesdrop on music playing loudly anyway... >> Access to audio devices (both OSS and ALSA) is exclusive by default >> anyway. > > Exclusive access is OK. Killing that access based on unrelated > circumstances isn't. We don't "kill" access. We suspend access until you reactivate your session. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
