Another interesting topic for standardization in the LSB involves multimedia. It’s clear that we need to give developers a good story on how to do multimedia on Linux in their applications; what’s less clear is what that story should be.
There’s been an interesting conversation regarding GStreamer, and its status in the KDE desktop. Apparently, burned by their experiences with their previous sound framework, the KDE folks are writing a new system, called Phonon. The idea is that Phonon would provide a clean, stable API layer for KDE apps to use for the vast majority of simple multimedia-ish things, like playing a sound clip.
Christian Schaller, a GStreamer hacker, isn’t too thrilled with this, and posted an unflattering analysis of Phonon to his blog. This prompted the kind of response you’d expect, including criticisms of GStreamer:
All other arguments aside, GStreamer doesn’t offer a stable API. I can understand why that’s the case, but as such, because of the (sane) library policies within the KDE project on binary compatibility we cannot simply use a GStreamer binding as our multimedia solution. Period. I was a little surprised by Christian’s posting because we’ve talked about this multiple times.
This piqued my interest, because there’s been talk within the LSB to add a multimedia framework, and GStreamer is one of the candidates. So Christian’s response is very important:
I consider Scott a friend and I think his entry is well considered. My general response is that the bigger and more complex an API gets the chances of getting it right the first time goes down.
I’m not sure how to react to this. If GStreamer’s ABI is still in flux, it may not be a good candidate for inclusion in the LSB. On the other hand, are there credible alternatives? Phonon’s scope is too limited, and it will likely be tied strongly to KDE, which makes it less desireable. There are other frameworks, but I’m not seeing that any of them have the credibility of GStreamer.
Perhaps the best we can do, at this time, is standardize at a low level (ALSA and Video for Linux) and wait for a clear winner in the multimedia space to emerge.
That sounds like an endorsement of the Phonon approach, and in a sense it is. But we have to be careful that we don’t create another source of complexity for the Linux desktop. If Phonon encourages all of us to play around with two or three separate multimedia frameworks, to the point that we can’t really have multimedia on our desktop without having to mess with more than one, then the Phonon supporters will have done the Linux desktop a disservice.