Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!crltrx!max.crl.dec.com!jg
From: jg@max.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <4840@crltrx.crl.dec.com>
Date: 12 Mar 90 21:36:40 GMT
References: <9003121606.AA03191@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: news@crltrx.crl.dec.com
Reply-To: jg@max.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Organization: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
Lines: 17

It is far from clear to me that the right way to do audio entails
an X extension.  While some coordination may be needed between
clients, it seems to me to be enough divorced from screen related functions
that packaging audio as a seperate server makes more sense.

After all, if X, just because it is the least course of resistance, becomes
the kitchen sink server, X will not survive the test of time.  The real time
aspects of audio also make me think it would be painful to do audio as an
X extension.

Before being so unpleasently nuked last month, Olivetti Research in Palo Alto
was building a server called "VOX" which addressed these needs.

I believe this is the correct course of action, until proven otherwise.  And
there is no proof that audio is best done as part of the X server, at least
yet.
				- Jim Gettys