Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:31:50 PM UTC+12, Anthony Jones wrote: > Supporting two separate audio backends in Linux is duplicated effort. > > I took over the platform media playback team at Mozilla a little over 3 years > ago. At that point we only supported WebM/VP8/Vorbis,

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 11/24/18 6:35 AM, susa...@gmail.com wrote: It is strange to hear "we are misserable impotent at ALSA" from Mozilla devs... Well, anyway, 2 years after your decision - how is feeling each time alsa-only user courses you? Enjoy! I'm sorry to have to say this, but the post above fails to

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

четверг, 14 июля 2016 г., 5:31:50 UTC+3 пользователь Anthony Jones написал: > Supporting two separate audio backends in Linux is duplicated effort. > > I took over the platform media playback team at Mozilla a little over 3 years > ago. At that point we only supported WebM/VP8/Vorbis,

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 29.09.2017 19:26, t...@tomsbox.co.uk wrote: As someone who has had wonderful times with ALSA & headaches with PA it's time to say goodbye FireFox. Maybe we should have a closer look at the PA library API, whether it could be usable w/o the pa daemon. IOW: have libpulse implementations that

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

As someone who has had wonderful times with ALSA & headaches with PA it's time to say goodbye FireFox. FireFox was my first goto browser for years now I'll add it to my purge script just under pulseaudio. Expecting users to give up 2 hours & 15Gb just to get alsa support in a browser is tbf

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 05.08.2017 07:27, kichu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, You're right. I have a sound card that supports mixing and all other necessary stuff in hardware, why shoud I waste my CPU for doing that with pulseaudio? Long time ago I switched from Opera to Firefox... maybe it's time to switch

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 10:58:05 UTC+2 użytkownik daniel@freepascal.org napisał: > Therefore if you can't maintain ALSA support, as I see it, you are doing a > poor job support Linux. The ALSA API isn't rocket science either, so if > attempt to look at it from a developer point of

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

I know, it's a pretty late answer but: My four Computers, running on Linux (OpenSuSE) are working fine with alsa from the beginning of alsa on. Now there is no need for a unneccessary intermediate layer named Pulseaudio in an fine working alsa-system. Numberless Tux-Users ignore pulse and

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

A message from a poor duped user here: I have 4 computers, only 1 runs Pulseaudio. Pulseaudio simply doesn't work or work well on 2 of them and the third running bare Alsa have a Sound Blaster Audigy with hardware mixing that would be abstracted away by Pulseaudio, so Pulseaudio is undesired

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 05/04/17 19:38, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Mar 31, 2017 4:49 PM, "Chris Coulson" > wrote: > > The Firefox package in Ubuntu is maintained by 1 contributor in his > spare time and myself who is only able to do the minimum in order to > provide updates, > > > Does

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Mar 31, 2017 4:49 PM, "Chris Coulson" wrote: The Firefox package in Ubuntu is maintained by 1 contributor in his spare time and myself who is only able to do the minimum in order to provide updates, Does today’s announcement of Ubuntu’s change in direction

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Thursday, 23 March 2017 17:42:02 UTC+13, jtkel...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-5, Botond Ballo wrote: > > Based on this new information, might there be room to reconsider this > > decision? > > Even if you do not reconsider the full decision, could you at

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

I want to say thank you for all the wonderful work that the Mozilla team does to create this product. Fantastic. I am equally impressed that you took the time to ask some basic questions like "what percentage of our Linux users are using ALSA vs Pulse". That was very courteous, but I don't

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Chris Coulson wrote: > The Firefox package in Ubuntu is maintained by 1 contributor in his > spare time and myself who is only able to do the minimum in order to > provide updates, so Ubuntu flavors that don't ship Pulseaudio need to >

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Given Ubuntus popularity, we decided to first reach out to that distribution. With limited resources and other work, we haven't reached out much further yet. Recently, there was some progress: Fedora is apparently submitting Telemetry . Arch

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Den fredag 31 mars 2017 kl. 15:49:50 UTC+2 skrev Chris Coulson: > On 31/03/17 05:52, burmar...@gmail.com wrote: > > Ubuntu just re-enabled ALSA on their latest Firefox 52.0.2 release. Go > > Ubuntu! > It's enabled, but please see the small-print in the changelog > description at >

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 31/03/17 05:52, burmar...@gmail.com wrote: > Ubuntu just re-enabled ALSA on their latest Firefox 52.0.2 release. Go Ubuntu! It's enabled, but please see the small-print in the changelog description at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1. The Firefox

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:45 PM, wrote: > Good choice from Ubuntu. In the meantime, I have run PA->aloop->JACK. Now I > am back with aloop->JACK. PA is removed from the system (and hopefully, I > will never need it again). I turned on telemetry for now, but will turn it

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Den fredag 31 mars 2017 kl. 06:52:18 UTC+2 skrev burm...@gmail.com: > Ubuntu just re-enabled ALSA on their latest Firefox 52.0.2 release. Go Ubuntu! > > So thankfully I and many others can now forget about this sorry business. > > Martin Burke Good choice from Ubuntu. In the meantime, I have

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Ubuntu just re-enabled ALSA on their latest Firefox 52.0.2 release. Go Ubuntu! So thankfully I and many others can now forget about this sorry business. Martin Burke ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Arguably, system configuration info belongs under FHR, so it would not > be optimal if the Pulse check wasn't there but was in opt-in Telemetry > instead. Where was it? The check was marked opt-out.

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Henri Sivonen writes: > It's a problem if distros disable FHR by default Probably a regression from bug 722240. Did Mozilla contact downstream maintainers they now have to explicitly opt-in? Bug 1233687 suggests the answer is "no", favoring one distro over the others. >

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Botond Ballo writes: > Anyways, there is no conflict between supporting ALSA and supporting > 5.1 sound. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, ALSA has since > added support for 5.1, and so IIUC it's just our wrapper library > (libcubeb) that needs the support added.

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > The FAQ seems to suggest that telemetry is only enabled in the pre-release > versions > and not in the release versions. I assume there is a bias that is caused by > this. There are two types of telemetry: "Firefox Health

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 2017-03-22 19:34, Botond Ballo wrote: Now that this change has hit the release channel, we've started receiving feedback from a wider range of users, a lot of it in bug 1345661 [1]. I believe the feedback in that thread brings some new information to the table that we weren't aware of when

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Den torsdag 14 juli 2016 kl. 09:32:51 UTC+2 skrev Jet Villegas: > I generally support reducing the support matrix for Linux PCM audio. > > A quick search for "ALSA vs. PulseAudio" comes up with mixed reviews for > either, which probably explains why we have both. It also seems like we can > count

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Den torsdag 14 juli 2016 kl. 04:31:50 UTC+2 skrev ajo...@mozilla.com: > Supporting two separate audio backends in Linux is duplicated effort. > > I took over the platform media playback team at Mozilla a little over 3 years > ago. At that point we only supported WebM/VP8/Vorbis,

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Jan Beich wrote: > Botond Ballo writes: > >> Anyways, there is no conflict between supporting ALSA and supporting >> 5.1 sound. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, ALSA has since >> added support for 5.1, and so

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:49 PM, wrote: > Why does a BROWSER need 5.1 or x.y sound??? The web platform is intended to be a competitive alternative to native platforms. That means that whatever native applications can do, we'd like web applications to be able to do as well,

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:31:50 PM UTC-4, ajo...@mozilla.com wrote: > Supporting two separate audio backends in Linux is duplicated effort. Then support, ONE.. ALSA. > The most problematic backend across all platforms is ALSA. It is also missing > full duplex support. Don't disagree...

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 22/03/2017 2:34 PM, Botond Ballo wrote: Now that this change has hit the release channel, we've started receiving feedback from a wider range of users, a lot of it in bug 1345661 [1]. I believe the feedback in that thread brings some new information to the table that we weren't aware of when

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:45:57AM -0700, kthies...@mozilla.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-7, jtkel...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-5, Botond Ballo wrote: > > > Based on this new information, might there be room to reconsider this

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-7, jtkel...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-5, Botond Ballo wrote: > > Based on this new information, might there be room to reconsider this > > decision? > > Even if you do not reconsider the full decision, could

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Le mercredi 15 mars 2017 02:24:57 UTC+1, qiana...@gmail.com a écrit : > Am Mittwoch, 15. März 2017 00:11:24 UTC+1 schrieb gfra...@gmail.com: > > So this is were this idea started! > > Great job guys, well, at least firefox is now unusable on Puppy Linux and > > low profile OSS. > > yes, indeed:

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Botond Ballo writes: > Now that this change has hit the release channel, we've started > receiving feedback from a wider range of users, a lot of it in bug > 1345661 [1]. > > I believe the feedback in that thread brings some new information to > the table that we weren't aware of when this

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-5, Botond Ballo wrote: > Based on this new information, might there be room to reconsider this > decision? Even if you do not reconsider the full decision, could you at least turn it back on for v52, so it can ride the ESR train? This has also been

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Now that this change has hit the release channel, we've started receiving feedback from a wider range of users, a lot of it in bug 1345661 [1]. I believe the feedback in that thread brings some new information to the table that we weren't aware of when this decision was made: - Based on the

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Am Montag, 18. Juli 2016 15:57:27 UTC+2 schrieb Ralph Giles: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > I also wonder how this fallback thing works. Things are linked to the > > pulseaudio library, but if the pulseaudio binary isn't installed things fall > >

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

Am Mittwoch, 15. März 2017 00:11:24 UTC+1 schrieb gfra...@gmail.com: > So this is were this idea started! > Great job guys, well, at least firefox is now unusable on Puppy Linux and low > profile OSS. yes, indeed: :( - A developer who don't like work much on ALSA and chose the easy way! (Hey,

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

So this is were this idea started! Great job guys, well, at least firefox is now unusable on Puppy Linux and low profile OSS. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

>I just landed some telemetry to measure the usage of all audio backends, >we'll have data soon. > >This was bug 1280630, and the probe is at [0]. This also measures >failures to open a stream and usage of backends that should not be used >on certain platform, like winmm on windows vista+. >

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I also wonder how this fallback thing works. Things are linked to the > pulseaudio library, but if the pulseaudio binary isn't installed things fall > back to something else like alsa as far as I know. Is this something the

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 2016-07-14 17:49, Mike Hoye wrote: On 2016-07-13 10:31 PM, ajo...@mozilla.com wrote: Our official Firefox builds on Linux support both PulseAudio and ALSA. There are a number of additional contributed backends that can be turned on at compile time, although contribution towards long-term

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Friday, 15 July 2016 00:16:07 UTC+8, Georg Fritzsche wrote: > This gives an overview of the current incoming Telemetry for Linux (from a > 1% sample of our data, "canonical" is the Ubuntu distribution): > https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/queries/678#table > Also keep in mind, unless using

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:33:17AM +0200, Paul Adenot wrote: > > I just landed some telemetry to measure the usage of all audio backends, > > we'll have data soon. > > Usual question when it comes to Linux: what's the

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On 2016-07-13 10:31 PM, ajo...@mozilla.com wrote: Our official Firefox builds on Linux support both PulseAudio and ALSA. There are a number of additional contributed backends that can be turned on at compile time, although contribution towards long-term maintenance and matching feature parity

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 21:07:54 UTC+12, Mike Hommey wrote: > As for the proposal itself, as I said in some bug, I think it would be > better if, even if alsa is not supported, pulse was still optional. No > pulse would mean no sound, instead of ... Firefox not starting at all, > with probably

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 19:32:51 UTC+12, Jet Villegas wrote: > A quick search for "ALSA vs. PulseAudio" comes up with mixed reviews for > either, which probably explains why we have both. It also seems like we can > count on ALSA being available on every distro, but perhaps not PulseAudio.

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:33:17AM +0200, Paul Adenot wrote: > I just landed some telemetry to measure the usage of all audio backends, > we'll have data soon. Usual question when it comes to Linux: what's the status of telemetry in Distro builds? As for the proposal itself, as I said in some

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

thanks! On 14/07/2016, Paul Adenot wrote: > I just landed some telemetry to measure the usage of all audio backends, > we'll have data soon. > > This was bug 1280630, and the probe is at [0]. This also measures > failures to open a stream and usage of backends that should not be

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

I just landed some telemetry to measure the usage of all audio backends, we'll have data soon. This was bug 1280630, and the probe is at [0]. This also measures failures to open a stream and usage of backends that should not be used on certain platform, like winmm on windows vista+. Also I

Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support

I generally support reducing the support matrix for Linux PCM audio. A quick search for "ALSA vs. PulseAudio" comes up with mixed reviews for either, which probably explains why we have both. It also seems like we can count on ALSA being available on every distro, but perhaps not PulseAudio. Can