1 |
On 25.04.2013 19:48, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
3 |
> wrote: |
4 |
>> I think you've hit the nail on the head. Complex setups require |
5 |
>> complex software... deal with it. An analogy is that an |
6 |
>> 18-wheeler semi-tractor trailer with a 17-speed manual transmission |
7 |
>> (plus air brakes that require months of training to manage/use) is |
8 |
>> much more powerful than a Chevy Sonic hatchback when it comes to |
9 |
>> hauling huge loads. But for someoneone who merely wants to zip out |
10 |
>> to the supermarket and buy a week's groceries, the hatchback is |
11 |
>> much more appropriate. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Similarly, PulseAudio may be better at handling complex situations |
14 |
>> like you describe. The yelling and screaming you're hearing are |
15 |
>> from the 99% of people whose setups are not complex enough to |
16 |
>> justify PulseAudio. Making 100% of setups more complex in order to |
17 |
>> handle the 1% of edge cases is simply wrong. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> The "complexity" overhead of pulseaudio is vaaastly overstated here. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Yes, as a general principle, adding unneeded complexity is bad. But |
22 |
> that takes into account general ideas on the relative tradeoffs of |
23 |
> having it there or not. But listen to the happy PA users here who |
24 |
> don't feel any problem with their setup. The complexity doesn't bite |
25 |
> them. |
26 |
|
27 |
That is not a good argument. If it were that easy, then why not just |
28 |
install everything -- or even simply untar all software -- at once? |
29 |
People say that HDDs are big now. And that would do for 99% users, |
30 |
wouldn't it? Instead, you're still messing with all that package |
31 |
managing stuff... |
32 |
|
33 |
As for the complexity of PA, one must distinguish the PA architecture |
34 |
complexity, its installation complexity and the complexity of managing |
35 |
this stuff for the user (not mentioning usage complexity which is |
36 |
probably negligible). |
37 |
|
38 |
I wouldn't care for the architecture complexity (although I assume it to |
39 |
be too complex) but what I do care about is its bad manageability. |
40 |
If it were to install just a package, or just remove one package, then |
41 |
everyone would be satisfied, including those who need the functionality. |
42 |
But apparently it isn't so; either all audio software is to use PA, or |
43 |
none at all. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Analogy: 99% of people aren't going to need a11y. But the whole point |
46 |
> of installing it by default on most desktop systems is that you can't |
47 |
> predict who will need it, and _it does not harm_ (or very little |
48 |
> harm) to the people who don't. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> So your tradeoffs are: A) no a11y unless elected by user: - for the |
51 |
> 1%: a11y is a pain to install because the user might not even be able |
52 |
> to see the screen (very big pain) - for the 99% use a few megabytes |
53 |
> less on their disk. (very small gain) |
54 |
> |
55 |
> B) a11y for everyone unless elected removed: - for the 1%: they can |
56 |
> use the system properly (no pain) - for the 99%: use a few megabytes |
57 |
> more on their disk (very small pain) |
58 |
|
59 |
> Obviously (B) is a better default choice. Ditto pulseaudio. |
60 |
|
61 |
Well if PA is that great then why really not do like you suggest? |
62 |
Probably, the problem is not "a few megabytes more on their disk" but |
63 |
that PA is just not a good alternative? |
64 |
|
65 |
And eventually is there a real big unsolvable problem for one to |
66 |
*install* PA when he needs? Does one really end up with "black screen" |
67 |
or another kinda PITA without PA? If not, then it's not a good analogy? |
68 |
|
69 |
But as I feel it, the talk is about choice, not PA nor complexity. I |
70 |
just *don't want* it. I probably don't see any harm with various |
71 |
akonadis and nepomuks in KDE (actually, I did see much harm, but that's |
72 |
another story) but I simply don't want'em. As a result (of all those |
73 |
useless-for-me pieces of great code removed) I have Gentoo running KDE |
74 |
times faster than e.g. OpenSUSE, but even without that, it's my choice |
75 |
and if I don't perceive or measure these "times faster" I believe in |
76 |
them. Why should I care that there is a 99% majority of users who say |
77 |
that some stuff are harmless or they need them on their PCs, if *I* |
78 |
don't need it on *my* PC? -- Here "I" means "one". |
79 |
If free software is going to be really free, then it is not expected to |
80 |
make assumptions about what I need or what 99% users need, nor to make |
81 |
its use unavoidable. It is expected to provide a means to use it, as |
82 |
well a means to not use it. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
Best wishes, |
86 |
Yuri K. Shatroff |