© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
a60fb26
(Get the code!)
> > What is the point of having:
> > WINE->PULSE->ALSA
> > instead of
> > WINE->ALSA-
> > ?
>
> I counter with the same logic:
> What's the point of having WINE->PULSE->ALSA instead of WINE->ALSA? Remove
> pulse from the equation (and use dmix where required) and you have a better
> working solution.
Might be, but PulseAudio is preconfigured in a majority of distributions and dmix is not. And dmix is not a better solution, because you can not easily adjust relative sound level from multiple programs with dmix. And you can not move a program to another sound card without restarting the program or stopping playback. Which in turn makes it nearly impossible easily configure dmix to support dynamically plugged in USB headsets for an average user. And such headsets are very popular now to reduce the interference noise from the built-in soundcards.
> > It's pretty clear to me, one less redirection and functions call etc etc...
> > Again, clearly WINE->ALSA could be better, but as seen as PULSE is basically
> > the de-facto standard (and now -gasp- works) why not support it?
>
> No, pulse is not a de-facto standard. It's not installed by default by the
> majority of distros.
Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Linux Mint, and openSUSE at this point. I believe that easily makes it a majority by any count. And it has been here for nearly 2 years.