On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 09:28:03AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > Audio apps tend to not be aware of the environment they run in, and not > be aware of what you want to happen with the sound. A bluetooth app has > no real way of knowing you want incoming phone calls to be sent to a > headset, to use the laptop's built-in mic and run the whole lot through > an audio filter to account for impaired hearing (i.e. boost the middle > frequencies). All whilst Amarok continues to play mp3s on speakers in > the next room. > > True, that sounds contrived, but audio just works like that - consider > all the combinations you have on the sound system in your living room. > > Trying to get apps to deal with this is an impossible task, so enter > pulseaudio. It knows about sources and sinks and has a config file so > that it can sit in the middle as a fat layer and apply this intelligence. > > If you need it, PA can be great. Not everyone needs or wants it, many > people are quite content to just carry on as they always did and aren't > fazed with minor niggles about their audio. You seem to fall in this > category, so do many others.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Complex setups require complex software... deal with it. An analogy is that an 18-wheeler semi-tractor trailer with a 17-speed manual transmission (plus air brakes that require months of training to manage/use) is much more powerful than a Chevy Sonic hatchback when it comes to hauling huge loads. But for someoneone who merely wants to zip out to the supermarket and buy a week's groceries, the hatchback is much more appropriate. Similarly, PulseAudio may be better at handling complex situations like you describe. The yelling and screaming you're hearing are from the 99% of people whose setups are not complex enough to justify PulseAudio. Making 100% of setups more complex in order to handle the 1% of edge cases is simply wrong. -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
