On Thursday 20 May 2010 10:40:33 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 05/20/2010 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 May 2010 23:56:39 walt wrote:
[snip] > >> Well, since I'm first to answer I get to inject my prejudices first :) > >> > >> I think pulse is a very long answer to a very short question and so I > >> did away with it months ago. And I haven't regretted it. > >> > >> Truly, I think very few people need pulse outside of professionals who > >> work in film or music. The main reason others have disagreed with my > >> opinion is because your silly desktop sounds like beeps and boings and > >> toilets flushing interrupt the CD you're listening to. Uh, well, yeah, > >> one sound generally interrupts another, true. So what? > >> > >> I'll bet your audio would do what you expect it to do if you just > >> removed every trace of pulse from your machine and run revdep-rebuild > >> with the pulse, arts, and esd useflags disabled (if those flags still > >> exist). > >> > >> Contrary opinions will follow shortly ;) > > > > No, I don't think they will :-) > > Well, here is one :P > > "Uh, well, yeah, one sound generally interrupts another, true." > > That is not true. ALSA (most people use that one) has dmix, which mixes > all sounds from all applications together. You don't need PulseAudio > for that. PulseAudio does indeed have it's uses. Some folks really do want fine-grained control over each daemon using the sound system, but those folks are not the set of average users. Feature-wise, ALSA pretty much does everything the *average* user wants, and that user does not really want to schlepp sound over the network or tweak every individual thing making noises. Now ALSA may or may not have good-quality code in it but that's another matter. We are discussing features. Like an earlier poster suggested, PulseAudio looks like a hammer in search of a nail. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
