Re: Pulseaudio


On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 22:26 +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm new to this list, so sorry if I ask something already discussed.
> It has been a while since esound has received some attention - releases
> are almost stalled. Looking at the GNOME wiki, it seems that Pulseaudio
> is the stronger candidate between alternatives, and that it allows for
> quite a lot of nifty things.
> I'm running pulseaudio since four or five months now on two of my
> desktop systems, both x86 and PPC, and I must say that I'm really
> satisfied by it. 
> It's quite stable and has very few compelling bugs for the normal user
> (e.g. when using it as an esound replacement on a machine with more than
> a logged in user it doesn't share the esd socket, or similar).
> It also seems to be actively developed, and is shipped by default with
> Fedora 8.
> Can it be eligible for inclusion in GNOME 2.22?

I think you really need the maintainer to propose it.  Having said that,
PulseAudio has been proposed before (IIRC).  If you check the archives,
I'm sure there are a few threads about it.

> is a sound server such as esd or pulseaudio still needed at all? As
> far
> as I understand, ALSA allows access from multiple applications. It
> supports hardware mixing and provides dmix as a fallback on systems
> where hardware mixing is not available. For the casual user, this
> should
> be sufficient. Or is it not?

ALSA = Advanced *Linux* sound architecture.  What about other platforms?
Do they have something similar to ALSA (or has ALSA expanded to other
platforms and if so, why has the acronym not changed)?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]