On 25.04.2013 19:48, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org>
wrote:
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.
The "complexity" overhead of pulseaudio is vaaastly overstated here.
Yes, as a general principle, adding unneeded complexity is bad. But
that takes into account general ideas on the relative tradeoffs of
having it there or not. But listen to the happy PA users here who
don't feel any problem with their setup. The complexity doesn't bite
them.
That is not a good argument. If it were that easy, then why not just
install everything -- or even simply untar all software -- at once?
People say that HDDs are big now. And that would do for 99% users,
wouldn't it? Instead, you're still messing with all that package
managing stuff...
As for the complexity of PA, one must distinguish the PA architecture
complexity, its installation complexity and the complexity of managing
this stuff for the user (not mentioning usage complexity which is
probably negligible).
I wouldn't care for the architecture complexity (although I assume it to
be too complex) but what I do care about is its bad manageability.
If it were to install just a package, or just remove one package, then
everyone would be satisfied, including those who need the functionality.
But apparently it isn't so; either all audio software is to use PA, or
none at all.
Analogy: 99% of people aren't going to need a11y. But the whole point
of installing it by default on most desktop systems is that you can't
predict who will need it, and _it does not harm_ (or very little
harm) to the people who don't.
So your tradeoffs are: A) no a11y unless elected by user: - for the
1%: a11y is a pain to install because the user might not even be able
to see the screen (very big pain) - for the 99% use a few megabytes
less on their disk. (very small gain)
B) a11y for everyone unless elected removed: - for the 1%: they can
use the system properly (no pain) - for the 99%: use a few megabytes
more on their disk (very small pain)
Obviously (B) is a better default choice. Ditto pulseaudio.
Well if PA is that great then why really not do like you suggest?
Probably, the problem is not "a few megabytes more on their disk" but
that PA is just not a good alternative?
And eventually is there a real big unsolvable problem for one to
*install* PA when he needs? Does one really end up with "black screen"
or another kinda PITA without PA? If not, then it's not a good analogy?
But as I feel it, the talk is about choice, not PA nor complexity. I
just *don't want* it. I probably don't see any harm with various
akonadis and nepomuks in KDE (actually, I did see much harm, but that's
another story) but I simply don't want'em. As a result (of all those
useless-for-me pieces of great code removed) I have Gentoo running KDE
times faster than e.g. OpenSUSE, but even without that, it's my choice
and if I don't perceive or measure these "times faster" I believe in
them. Why should I care that there is a 99% majority of users who say
that some stuff are harmless or they need them on their PCs, if *I*
don't need it on *my* PC? -- Here "I" means "one".
If free software is going to be really free, then it is not expected to
make assumptions about what I need or what 99% users need, nor to make
its use unavoidable. It is expected to provide a means to use it, as
well a means to not use it.
--
Best wishes,
Yuri K. Shatroff
