Il giorno mer, 10/10/2007 alle 14.00 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro ha scritto: > I tried and I'm still not convinced. Unless there are some special > kernel patches in fedora making a big difference, I still hate sound > routed through a userspace daemon. I would willingly tolerate it for > sound coming from network applications, but it's not a price I want to > pay for simple local applications when I don't care about PNP or network > sound. > > IMHO Pulse Audio developers are just being stubborn; I have not yet any > good reason why PA and direct ALSA access cannot get along. You tried and you found it doesn't work for you, and that's fine -- I'm happy to hear your opinion, _expecially_ because it is different than mine. I can say only that passing from ALSA to Pulseaudio *for me*: - decreased overall latency - meant I didn't have to configure it at all, except modifying my asound.conf a little, when I wanted full ALSA apps support. - now I can play two or more totem instances without gaps, and also have other desktop sounds playing in the meantime - has many other benefits, even from a developer point of view (it's easier to code with Pulseaudio APIs). - esd was perfectly replaced, which is the main point. Esound apps works for me out of the box. This is a big win, imho. As for the interrupts sent to the soundcard, a module has been already included in the upcoming 0.9.7 version that should fix that. AFAIK it's because Pulseaudio plays silence when nobody uses it, to avoid popping when a stream starts again, and due to something about the HAL module, too. The only thing I must criticize is you saying that PA devs are stubborn. It seems to me they're really trying to innovate a stagnating and non-homogeneous field, and they should at least be treated with some respect. "Stubborn" isn't the word I'd have chosen to describe them. Anyway, even if PA isn't *THE* answer, ALSA isn't, either, for the reasons already expressed in this thread. So, what do you purpose? I think that fixing PA is easier than starting it again all over. Else, do we need a Phonon-substitute for GNOME? > > I'm sorry for being the bad guy here, but someone has to say these > things... You're not the "bad guy". The point is: are you the *only* guy, even if very vocal? I'd like to hear some more opinions from other people that *don't* like Pulseaudio. C'mon, there ought to be some more on this list. Don't be shy. We need the opinion of everybody (I'm talking serious, no sarcasm meant). Thanks, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : matteo member fsf org -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d--(-) s+:- a-- C++ UL+++ P?>++ L+++>$ E+>+++ W+++ N++ o? w--- O- M++ PS++ PE- Y+>++ PGP+++ t+ 5 X- R tv-- b+++ DI+ D++ G++ e h+ r-- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente