On Tuesday 04 May 2010, Xavion wrote: > > Thank you for sharing your views regarding pulseaudio. > > For you what is the main advantage of using pulseaudio compared to > > standart alsa ? > > Some people might dispute this statement, but PulseAudio is the Linux sound > server of the future. For me, its biggest strength is the GUI approach > that makes configuration much simpler. Since Linphone is a GUI > application, it makes sense to liaise with a sound server that has a > native GUI.
linphone is also a CLI app used on embedded devices, often without a display. In this case it is often started from an init script. PulseAudio is a _very_ bad fit in this situation as it expects a logged in user to be the only user of the sound devices, and the only way to get it to work is to use it in a mode that's deprecated by the developers because it presents a security risk. This problem isn't limited to embedded systems either - I use the squeezeslave squeezebox client as a daemon on most of my boxes at home which makes PulseAudio a nonstarter for me. > > In my opinion pulseaudio has a too big latency and is not appropriate for > > VOIP. > > Any current latency issues will probably be resolved in future releases of > PulseAudio. If there are no other significant problems, I think it'd be > wise for Linphone to support PulseAudio now, rather than continuing to lag > behind the times. Thanks for taking my opinions on this matter into > consideration. Then wait until they fix the latency. I would have to reevaluate PulseAudio to see if its CPU-hogging tendencies on integer-only cores like older ARMs have been cured, another problem that made it a nonstarter for embedded users. If PulseAudio support is included it should be as well as ALSA, not instead of. _______________________________________________ Linphone-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/linphone-users
