Csaba Halász wrote:
> James wants to *use* pulse while most users would be happy to just
> have FG work *around* pulse.
I disagree. Instead, I suspect that most (Linux) users would be happy
to see FlightGear playing seamlessly through PulseAudio. And I'll
explain, why I think this is the case.
In the early days of what is now known as FGCOM we've faced a lot of
trouble getting multiple audio sources (whichever desktop environment,
FlightGear, FGCOM) play together nicely on a single sound device,
simply because applications were typically _not_ built with thinking of
multiple audio frameworks being present and active on one single
machine.
Now that more and more FlightGear users tend to use funky desktops as
well as tools like FGCOM or speech synthesis, advising to work around
PulseAudio will probably not prove to be a clever idea in the long run.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
