Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Why Phonon is a broken wheel

Filed under
KDE

In the discussion the approach taken by the Phonon abstraction layer which the Phonon project is advocating for inclusion in KDE4 also came up. I have held back blogging about Phonon for some time to avoid flamewars, but I don't want to have efforts like OSDL delayed due to setups like Phonon being promoted or thought of as a workable solution for the issues faced. Let me start of with a brief introduction to the area of multimedia frameworks.

First of all multimedia frameworks are very complex systems, handling very hard technical problems in order to cater for issues ranging from problems from dealing with the analog past (for some technical information in this field I recommend fourcc.org), a forest of media formats with different traits, a host of features/deficiencies in hardware and a wide range of other software solutions to interact with like sound servers and legacy systems. On top of this you add performance and latency requirements, network protocols and multiplatform issues. In the end you have a problem space where even those who have worked on the issues for many years need to keep their head clear when designing the framework.

Multimedia frameworks are also by their nature abstraction layers themselves, trying to abstract away all the demuxers, muxers, decoders, encoders, cameras, soundcards, sound systems, network protocols and various types of filters into a coherent and userfriendly API.

Now to get back to why I think Phonon is conceptually broken. First of all it is destined to fall into one of two traps. Either its API become so high level and limited that application developers will shun it due to a lack of features, meaning that you have an API useful for doing 'ding' sounds in standard applications, but anyone wanting more powerful operations will feel its a bigger hindrance than a help. On the other hand if they actually try to implement a feature set that is big enough to at least satisfy a subset, of for instance music player writers, then they will be forced into accessing things so deep in the frameworks that the operations become so framework specific that generalizing them away into a common API will at best be a kludge and at worst produce various broken behaviour changing depending on framework chosen.

Phonon also falls short in many other areas.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more