Re: [gentoo-user] Removing pulseaudio

[Mark David Dumlao]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-uno@××××××.ru> wrote:
> On 25.04.2013 19:48, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you've hit the nail on the head.  Complex setups require
>>> complex software... deal with it.  An analogy is that an
>>> 18-wheeler semi-tractor trailer with a 17-speed manual transmission
>>> (plus air brakes that require months of training to manage/use) is
>>> much more powerful than a Chevy Sonic hatchback when it comes to
>>> hauling huge loads.  But for someoneone who merely wants to zip out
>>> to the supermarket and buy a week's groceries, the hatchback is
>>> much more appropriate.
>>>
>>> Similarly, PulseAudio may be better at handling complex situations
>>> like you describe.  The yelling and screaming you're hearing are
>>> from the 99% of people whose setups are not complex enough to
>>> justify PulseAudio.  Making 100% of setups more complex in order to
>>> handle the 1% of edge cases is simply wrong.
>>
>>
>> The "complexity" overhead of pulseaudio is vaaastly overstated here.
>>
>> Yes, as a general principle, adding unneeded complexity is bad. But
>> that takes into account general ideas on the relative tradeoffs of
>> having it there or not. But listen to the happy PA users here who
>> don't feel any problem with their setup. The complexity doesn't bite
>> them.
>
>
> That is not a good argument. If it were that easy, then why not just
> install everything -- or even simply untar all software -- at once?
> People say that HDDs are big now. And that would do for 99% users,
> wouldn't it? Instead, you're still messing with all that package managing
> stuff...

There is a a very huge difference between "all software at once" and
"one particular small package with a proven use".

> I wouldn't care for the architecture complexity (although I assume it to
> be too complex) but what I do care about is its bad manageability.
> If it were to install just a package, or just remove one package, then
> everyone would be satisfied, including those who need the functionality. But
> apparently it isn't so; either all audio software is to use PA, or none at
> all.

BEEEP. Wrong. The same niggles that allow ALSA to multi-audio without
pulseaudio are magically not erased by installing pulseaudio. It's
just that - what's the point? If you can adjust the volume of M.A.R.S
A Ridiculous Shooter independently of the volume of your flash plugin,
why would you want to exempt vlc or thunderbird from the same?

> Well if PA is that great then why really not do like you suggest? Probably,
> the problem is not "a few megabytes more on their disk" but that PA is just
> not a good alternative?

Haven't "heard" any reason to think otherwise, pun intended. Even with
projects that hate pulseaudio's guts and don't want to play with them,
I can make them be happy with pasuspender.

> And eventually is there a real big unsolvable problem for one to *install*
> PA when he needs? Does one really end up with "black screen" or another
> kinda PITA without PA? If not, then it's not a good analogy.
>
> But as I feel it, the talk is about choice, not PA nor complexity. I just
> *don't want* it.

The analogy isn't that the desktop is broken without PA. The analogy
was only to show that there are tradeoffs that go into considering
"added complexity", which were blindly being considered as a
set-in-stone rule for designing systems. I'm sorry, that's a terrible
rule to live by when designing systems for real people. It's just a
guideline. You _must_ consider the tradeoffs. There is no substitute
for considering the tradeoffs

Now obviously with gentoo, we already have a choice to put it in or
not, so I'm guessing you're evaluating non-gentoo choices to put it in
by default. So you're effectively criticizing gnobuntudora.

The gnobuntudora choice to include it by default makes sense, because
they are often catering to environments where even mentioning the
package manager to the average user is already "too technical" for
them. So in their calculus, the 99% who don't need it don't suffer,
but the 1% who need it do and will suffer. You haven't demonstrated
that you've given the same depth of considerations to this.

--
This email is:    [ ] actionable   [ ] fyi        [x] social
Response needed:  [ ] yes          [x] up to you  [ ] no
Time-sensitive:   [ ] immediate    [ ] soon       [x] none