1 |
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:24:46 -0800 |
2 |
walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 01/24/2012 10:52 PM, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
5 |
> > walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> >> I just scanned through the gnome-control-center code looking for |
8 |
> >> clues about pulse and found no sign that pulse is voluntary. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > So what would happen if I installed pulse and just didn't |
11 |
> > start the thing, what would I lose then? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I tried that and found that the gnome applet for controlling the |
14 |
> volume and mixer controls won't work without pulse. You can use some |
15 |
> other app to change the volume, I suppose, but I didn't bother to try |
16 |
> it. Seems like a losing battle in the long run. Maybe if we wait |
17 |
> long enough pulse will actually become useful to ordinary everyday |
18 |
> users. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
Why do you say that? (Serious question, I'm not jerking your chain) |
22 |
|
23 |
I also don't use pulse - plain ALSA is good enough for me - but looking |
24 |
over the design goals for pulseaudio I see a decent attempt to deal |
25 |
with audio properly for the future. These days we have computers and |
26 |
devices that can interact with many other things in weird and |
27 |
wonderful ways and software needs to deal with that. It's similar in a |
28 |
way to the rise of desktop environments in the past - instead of a |
29 |
bunch of isolated apps all doing their own thing independantly, systems |
30 |
like KDE created an environment where apps interacted nicely and |
31 |
all needed to plug into the same bus. Whether that goal was properly |
32 |
accomplished or not is a different debate :-) |
33 |
|
34 |
If a simpler desktop is your thing and you actually prefer *Box|XFCE or |
35 |
such then you have no need of pulse audio and that's OK. I just curious |
36 |
why you think that it's not useful to the ordinary user in a generic |
37 |
wide way. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Alan McKinnnon |
42 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |