zotz | Alsa, continued.

You're viewing

zotz's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

The CDRom drive's fine. It was a permissions issue ( 'doh!), but not on /dev/cdrom where I expected, on /dev/sg0 instead. This was never a problem before, but as long as I know to expect it . . .

Sound on system events is back, so presumably all I need to do is get the modules to load and that's half my problem solved . . .

The other half, of course, involves working out exactly why system sounds come out fine, but nothing else does.

And goodness aren't the government in trouble? You know, if we'd elected that nice Mr Foot back in '83, none of this would have happened. Of course, the (since self-canonised) Mr. Benn would have to have stopped shitstirring for there to have been any chance of that, which was never going to happen.

Current Mood: Improved

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

reddragdiva

"This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers." - Andrew Gilligan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446443.stm)

From:

zotz

Indeed. Jon Snow said (today's Guardian) "Hutton's inquiry and his report do not seem to share the same genesis." John Tusa described it as "grossly unfair". Most unkindly, Simon Hoggart said yesterday (Thursday) that "It is no reflection on Lord Hutton's integrity that, if the prime minister had been allowed to write the report himself, it would have read much in the way it did." Malcolm Rifkind's had a bit to say about how he thinks the MoD would have (and would have been entitled to have) handled it when he was defence minister.

Regardless of all which, the public don't seem to be convinced by it. Now, usually I'm very critical of knee-jerk cynicism, but this time I agree that it's all a bit one-sided.

From:

deliberateblank.livejournal.com

"It is no reflection on Lord Hutton's integrity that, if the prime minister had been allowed to write the report himself, it would have read much in the way it did."

He didn't?

From:

yehoshua.livejournal.com

What happened when you ran sndconfig? And if I may ask, what distro are you running?

I'm not actually sure what I think at this point of the Gilligan affair. I must be missing something because the only time I hear the BBC right now is when getting ready for bed, and something rings wrong still. Either I'm missing a detail or 20, or something is fishy (at least to my mind).

From:

zotz

sndconfig seems to be a purely OSS thing. I'm only using alsa at the moment. I may venture into OSS emulation if I need to, but first things first.

Most people think something about Gilligan's fishy. The general opinion seems to be that Hutton was quite straightforward with the BBC, but seems to have been extraordinarily lenient with the government. It all seems very strange, as everyone thought the way he ran the actual inquiry was impeccable.

I don't really understand either, but according to polls and things, the public's not in any mood to let Tony off on this one.

From:

yehoshua.livejournal.com

/me goes and looks at the current state of alsa, which he hasn't done in ages

Oy, it's SuSE-only now? WTF? If not, why's that bloody lizard on their homepage? Next thing you know machines with alsa installed will only play Einsturzende Neubauten at you. </rant>

A quick read-through of the docs tells me it's almost completely unrelated to what I worked with a few years ago, so I'm probably not giving good advice. But that's never stopped me before, so: one of the ways that used to be recommended for testing if alsa was working correctly was to run sndconfig and see if it could drive your audio card. This assumes that sndconfig wasn't up to the task on it's own, and that this was your reason for mucking with alsa in the first place. So you might just poke at it for a bit, then run sndconfig and see if that nice Mr. Torvalds will say something to you w/out you having to reconfigure any of the settings it groks on its own.

I'm ... heartened is the wrong word ... to know I'm not the only one who thinks something is cockeyed about the story. And Tony has gotten a pass on a lot of stuff, so he's not in a position to complain if the public eventually hand him his hat on this matter.

From:

deliberateblank.livejournal.com

Most people think something about Gilligan's fishy.

He's a slimy bastard to be sure. But then there are far more and far slimier bastards on the other side of the fence.

While I was waiting for my chinese tonight I was flicking through some tab or other which had a nice two-page, vidicatees on the left, blastees on the right spread.

I can see an argument against Gilligan, but at worst he's a cynical incompetant headline grabbing tabloidesque journo. Apparently there are worse crimes.

The BBC people, I can see the argument for sharing responsibility, which they have been quite prompt, if understandably unhappy, about doing. But really, they were sticking up for the rights they had already, rightfully, devolved to their lower staff, and I hope I always work for people like that. This was a high morale company. They would have been much worse management and people had they dumped Gilligan in the shit as soon as the breeze outside their window starting smelling off.

I was astounded that Kelly was laid into. He was (AFAICT) a conscientious and hard-working scientist. A humanitarian who was doing real good on the ground to (if you want to put it in those terms, but I draw the line at the capital T) make a real stand against terrorism which is far more than those above him, despite their strong words, have ever done. That he also chose to try and keep the press accurate and informed is to be encouraged, not grounds to be persecuted.