On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:08:26 -0500 "Walter Dnes" <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> An answer from a different Walter <G>... > > > I also don't use pulse - plain ALSA is good enough for me - but > > looking over the design goals for pulseaudio I see a decent attempt > > to deal with audio properly for the future. These days we have > > computers and devices that can interact with many other things in > > weird and wonderful ways and software needs to deal with that. > > [...deletia...] > > > I just curious why you think that it's not useful to the ordinary > > user in a generic wide way. > > I'll throw the question back to you. How about you go first? I'm not opening up a debate and preparing an argument, I really want to know what you think about this matter. Yeah, I know, this is a highly unusual thing for Alan to put out there and I've never done it this way before :-) But it's legit, I don't have a dog in this fight and would really like to know what you think > What specific benefits do you > see? Not just generalities, but real life benfits, please. Sound > daemons in general seem to be solutions in search of a problem. And > if they couldn't find any problems to solve, they'd make up some new > ones of their own. I remember the first I heard of pulseaudio was > all the weeping and moaning of people on this forum and the GTALUG > (Toronto area linux mailing list) trying to get sound working again > after installing pulseaudio. > > Remember arts and esd? They went the way of HAL. Nuff said. The > thing to remember is that humans cannot multitask audio very well. > Try listening to 2 radio stations at once, and see what I mean. > -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
