Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 21:24:42 -0400 Ric Moore wrote: Hello Ric, >Works a charm for me, and has for years, BUT every once in awhile As it does for many, I'm sure. >the volume levels back up to 100%. Pulse rides on top of alsa, so alsa And that's a problem. Now, if sound goes wrong there are *two* things to look at; ALSA & PA. Sod's Law says I pick the wrong one to look at first. And that assumes there's breakage in either PA or ALSA. There is, of course, a third possibility - breakage in PA *and* ALSA. I don't want to go there: LTS. >I also recommend cheap USB sound devices as they seem to always work. Except I see that Joe is having issues with a USB sound device. Although, to be fair, the problem appears to be with sound modules, rather than PA/ALSA. >Whatever passes for a sound device on my laptop never seems to work, Laptops are often a nightmare. Not just with sound. Shortcuts are often taken to a) get everything inside a small enough box and b) keep costs down. Any deficiencies then have to be catered for in software. Easy in Windows, since every manufacturer wants their machines to sell in that environment. Not so easy in Linux if the manufacturer won't release detailed specs about their corner/cost cutting. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" Gary don't need his eyes to see, Gary and his eyes have parted company Gary Gilmore's Eyes - The Adverts pgp0GlG3agYte.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On 09/10/2018 08:27 AM, Brad Rogers wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:53:01 + (UTC) Curt wrote: Hello Curt, So uninstall it then in that unfortunate case--with extreme prejudice Time. Oh, and I can't be arsed to try PA in the first place. :-) Or are we dealing with the supernatural here (software from Hell)? I'm wary because of all the tales of woe I've read. Obviously, there are plenty of ppl for whom PA causes no problems at all. Works a charm for me, and has for years, BUT every once in awhile something buggers alsa settings and I have to use alsamixer to raise the volume levels back up to 100%. Pulse rides on top of alsa, so alsa has to be working before pulse can do it's thing. I also recommend cheap USB sound devices as they seem to always work. Whatever passes for a sound device on my laptop never seems to work, but plugging in a pair of USB headphones always does. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
Re: [beginning OT] Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On Monday, September 10, 2018 09:37:28 AM Thomas Schmitt wrote: > I could offer my program cdrskin as real example. > It is a cdrecord/wodim compatibility wrapper but exceeds both when it > comes to DVD and BD media. Thanks, for: * the useful example, and * changing the Subject: line appropriately! (for this and your later post)
Re: [beginning OT] Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
Hi. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:37:28PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Reco wrote: > > > It's the usual. A compatibility wrapper can never exceed the original. > > rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hmm, I don't see why it couldn't in some sense -- I'm trying to think of how > > to say what I want to say, let me try a made-up example. > > I could offer my program cdrskin as real example. > It is a cdrecord/wodim compatibility wrapper but exceeds both when it > comes to DVD and BD media. Wait. You're *the* Thomas Schmitt who wrote xorriso? I have to take it back then. A compatibility wrapper can exceed the original indeed. Reco
[beginning OT] Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
Hi, Reco wrote: > > It's the usual. A compatibility wrapper can never exceed the original. rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Hmm, I don't see why it couldn't in some sense -- I'm trying to think of how > to say what I want to say, let me try a made-up example. I could offer my program cdrskin as real example. It is a cdrecord/wodim compatibility wrapper but exceeds both when it comes to DVD and BD media. > Suppose some piece of software is running (or trying to run) on a piece of > hardware where some function does not work because the software was written > to > depend on a certain set of (let's say machine) instructions which don't exist > on that particular machine. Or suppose a program which insists to treat every optical medium like a CD, regardless what the specs say ... Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:53:01 + (UTC) Curt wrote: Hello Curt, >So uninstall it then in that unfortunate case--with extreme prejudice Time. Oh, and I can't be arsed to try PA in the first place. :-) >Or are we dealing with the supernatural here (software from Hell)? I'm wary because of all the tales of woe I've read. Obviously, there are plenty of ppl for whom PA causes no problems at all. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" Only the wounded remain, the generals have all left the game Generals - The Damned pgpgVfhukSSpy.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On 2018-09-10, Brad Rogers wrote: > > The machine it does affect is the one that I routinely use, which has > been in use for longer than PA has been around. I /could/ install PA, > but am reluctant to do so, since sound works here ATM and I'm concerned > that installing PA may cause issues for me. > So uninstall it then in that unfortunate case--with extreme prejudice (you know, like, purgerino time). Or are we dealing with the supernatural here (software from Hell)?
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On Monday, September 10, 2018 05:49:01 AM Reco wrote: > It's the usual. A compatibility wrapper can never exceed the original. Hmm, I don't see why it couldn't in some sense -- I'm trying to think of how to say what I want to say, let me try a made-up example. Suppose some piece of software is running (or trying to run) on a piece of hardware where some function does not work because the software was written to depend on a certain set of (let's say machine) instructions which don't exist on that particular machine. But, on a Turing complete machine, I'd expect other instructions to exist which, perhaps by substituting a long series of such other instructions, the missing machine instructions could be emulated. As a(n almost) real world example, at least once (and I'm pretty sure more than once) Intel built a chip that had some hardware errors (I'm remembering what I think is the first one, maybe as many as 20 years ago) when the floating point operations gave incorrect results for at least some inputs. Intel created a fix (a compatibility layer, in my choice of words) that fixed the problem. If the problem is that Firefox can't produce sound in some or all circumstances because it doesn't support ALSA, yet ALSA is the sound system running on the machine, a compatibility layer could be created that (without getting the details correct) translated the sound instructions that Firefox issues into ALSA instructions. Hmm, did I react too much to that simple statement -- maybe, I just think it is an un-necessarily limiting statement to "our" thinking.
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:49:01 +0300 Reco wrote: Hello Reco, >On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:59:03AM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: >> I've not been running apulse long, but so far, no crashes in Ff 62. >So upstream lies then. To quote apulse's README.md: Maybe, maybe not. It's only been a couple of days and I've yet to really stress load Ff. Fear not, if I do get crashes, I'll report here. >sandbox violation with subsequent process termination. Exception can be >added by setting parameter `security.sandbox.content.syscall_whitelist` >in `about:config`. That field accepts a comma separated list of system >call numbers. Add there `16` for x86-64, or `54` for x86 or ARM. Which I've added. After reading various posts/complaints in multiple places. >It's the usual. A compatibility wrapper can never exceed the original. Agreed. In this case, it doesn't need to. Well, not yet. >But - if it works for anyone - more power to them. I only administer a handful of machines, and this problem affects only one of them; All the others had PA installed when they were first set up (bare metal installations of Debian), so no problems there. The machine it does affect is the one that I routinely use, which has been in use for longer than PA has been around. I /could/ install PA, but am reluctant to do so, since sound works here ATM and I'm concerned that installing PA may cause issues for me. My gut feeling/guess is that installing PA on 'virgin' hardware is fine, by _may_ result in odd behaviour when installed on a system successfully running ALSA and, TBH, I don't want to find out and (maybe) have to go through another PITA session of getting sound working properly again. Time and life are short, and spending time getting sound working isn't something I want to waste the two on. I'm already resigned to the fact that I'm having to use two browsers anyway, since certain plugins I find /extremely/ useful only work in a XUL environment, whilst others only work in a WE environment. As I said last time; Sometimes, you just can't win. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" This disease is catching Into The Valley - Skids pgpsQqWYRRuBJ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
Hi. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:59:03AM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 11:43:39 +0300 > Reco wrote: > > Hello Reco, > > >Moreover, apulse causes Firefox to crash since Firefox version 58, as > > I've not been running apulse long, but so far, no crashes in Ff 62. So upstream lies then. To quote apulse's README.md: Firefox 58 (Nightly) tightened its sandbox a bit more. Now `ioctl()` calls are forbidden too, but are used by ALSA libraries. That causes sandbox violation with subsequent process termination. Exception can be added by setting parameter `security.sandbox.content.syscall_whitelist` in `about:config`. That field accepts a comma separated list of system call numbers. Add there `16` for x86-64, or `54` for x86 or ARM. > >apulse is a kludge, not a solution. > > That's as may be (I don't have an opinion either way). It's the usual. A compatibility wrapper can never exceed the original. But - if it works for anyone - more power to them. Reco
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 11:43:39 +0300 Reco wrote: Hello Reco, >Moreover, apulse causes Firefox to crash since Firefox version 58, as I've not been running apulse long, but so far, no crashes in Ff 62. >apulse is a kludge, not a solution. That's as may be (I don't have an opinion either way). Sadly, however, Mozilla are withdrawing ALSA support completely (slowly, over time) and I'm disinclined to run an ever ageing version of Ff just to maintain sound. In part because that brings problems of its own, what with sites no longer working because of 'Your web browser is too old' "error" reports. Sometimes, you just can't win. :-( -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" We are the chosen Changed - Judgement Centre pgpt42fRL_7F4.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
Rob van der Putten wrote: > Does anyone know why ALSA is no longer supported? You mean supported by Firefox? I guess they decided PA is more easy to implement as default interface ... whatever underlaying audio system you use. I still could not understand why, but this seems irreversible.
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
to...@tuxteam.de (2018-09-09): > Personally, I couldn't care less: I consider my browser's inability > to make sounds a welcome *feature*, so not having Pulse (which is my > default) just naturally takes care of that. Same for me. And apulse seems to work for me anyway. > Given the amount of passive-aggressive juice flowing there (in both > directions, mind you!), I guess it'll stay like that. > > Perhaps you could convince Mozilla if you're able to summon up > enough devel power to take care of an alternative back-end (e.g. > "naked" ALSA), but I guess it would have to be somewhat credible. Or they could have used one of the front-end libraries, maybe libao. Or chosen ALSA's libasound, because libasound can be routed to pulse transparently. Obviously this was a political choice. Expect Gnome's WM to be mandatory next. > Freedom sometimes sucks; the lack thereof always sucks :) Hear, hear. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 10:24:30AM +0200, Rob van der Putten wrote: > Hi there > > > Note: A reply in bugs failed. > > On 09/09/18 10:08, Marco Lucidi wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 21:41:11 +0200 Samuel Thibault > > wrote: > > > Unfortunately AIUI upstream has stopped supporting ALSA, so we > are stuck > > > with pulseaudio for firefox. > > > > Is there any particular reason for pulseaudio not being listed in the > > dependencies? > > I mean, even if it's not a "core" dependency, I think it should be > > listed in rec or at least in sug. > > Apparently there alternatives to pulseaudio. See; > http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=639534#p639534 > > Does anyone know why ALSA is no longer supported? Does Firefox run > in a chroot? How much work would it be to add ALSA support? It seems to be intentional: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1247056 Personally, I couldn't care less: I consider my browser's inability to make sounds a welcome *feature*, so not having Pulse (which is my default) just naturally takes care of that. Given the amount of passive-aggressive juice flowing there (in both directions, mind you!), I guess it'll stay like that. Perhaps you could convince Mozilla if you're able to summon up enough devel power to take care of an alternative back-end (e.g. "naked" ALSA), but I guess it would have to be somewhat credible. Freedom sometimes sucks; the lack thereof always sucks :) Cheers - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluU3vEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY1uwCdEvBKgL2cXDm7Dms6fsV0AX8N +RAAn1i/fov9zJUfl2JtsrPoQElN23Xa =1EKS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug#908349: firefox-esr: no sound after upgrading from 52.9 to 60.2
Hi. On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 10:24:30AM +0200, Rob van der Putten wrote: > Hi there > > > Note: A reply in bugs failed. > > On 09/09/18 10:08, Marco Lucidi wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 21:41:11 +0200 Samuel Thibault > > wrote: > > > Unfortunately AIUI upstream has stopped supporting ALSA, so we are > stuck > > > with pulseaudio for firefox. > > > > Is there any particular reason for pulseaudio not being listed in the > > dependencies? > > I mean, even if it's not a "core" dependency, I think it should be > > listed in rec or at least in sug. > > Apparently there alternatives to pulseaudio. See; > http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=639534#p639534 You mean apulse? It's a partial re-implementation of Pulseaudio in a form of a shared library with emphasis on 'partial'. Moreover, apulse causes Firefox to crash since Firefox version 58, as apulse shared library makes system calls that Firefox does not anticipate for. apulse is a kludge, not a solution. > Does anyone know why ALSA is no longer supported? To quote [1], Make Pulse Audio a hard dependency on Linux so that we reduce the problems and maintenance associated with maintaining multiple audio backends. > Does Firefox run in a chroot? Yes, but without sound. > How much work would it be to add ALSA support? All alsa support was deleted from Firefox codebase as of version 53 IIRC. I find it highly unlikely that 'Maintainers of Mozilla-related packages' can be convinced to maintain Firefox fork of these proportions even if someone was willing to revert alsa-removing change and maintain it indefinitely. Reco [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1345661
