On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:47:19PM +0100, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:28:34 -0800 > Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Thomas Pfaff <tpf...@tp76.info> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:45:31 +0100 > > > Peter Hessler <phess...@theapt.org> wrote: > > > > > >> mixerctl inputs.master=[0,255] > > >> mixerctl outputs.master=[0,255] > > > > > > Still, is a simpler sysctl interface something people want? mixerctl > > > can be reserved for people wanting to screw around with the gazillion > > > of options available. > > > > Mixerctl and sysctl already have the same interface. And saying > > mixerctl has too many options is silly considering how many options > > sysctl has. > > Sure, but sysctl snd.* won't have that many options. Do you really > like the mixerctl interface?
outputs.master and record.volume are intentionally near the end of the control list, so no matter how many controls there are, when you do 'mixerctl', they are on the display, and you can ignore the rest ... > > If you don't like mixerctl, there's at least a half dozen mixers in > > ports. > > I don't want some band aid solution. > > Anyway, thanks for the feedback. mixerctl is not intended to be user friendly. think about it, it just dumps all the mixer controls and their current values. someone who feels mixerctl is lacking needs to write an intelligent mixer program. I am comfortable with mixerctl. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
