23 Jun
2009
23 Jun
'09
9:18 a.m.
On 06/23/2009 06:02 PM, alex stone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Patrick
Shirkey<pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. Lennart has proven to be open to our suggestions
in the past and is prepared to work with everyone round here on the
matter of desktop integration and to a degree system design.
IMO what is missing at the moment is a unified plan from the LAD
community for desktop integration that is compatible with the unified
plan from the freedesktop community et al.
What I see is that Lennart and the others who have worked on pulseaudio
have done such a good job at making the platform accessible to the
desktop community that it has now become the defacto standard for Linux
Audio.
This was certainly helped by the insistence (for good reasons) that JACK
is not designed for normal users or non realtime desktop apps and the
lack of effort contributed to tackling the inherent issues.
However we do have a problem now that needs to be sorted with
integrating pa and jack in a way that is easy for everyone to work with.
Clearly Lennart has found that PA needs to be able to handle realtime
usage cases and is attempting in his best way to deal with those
problems. However there is soooo much cross over here that it is
becoming a dictatorial situation for those of us who are not
intrinsically tied too the pulse audio system.
Hence it is in everyones best interests to make sure this issue is
resolved or else we will have another alsa vs oss situation on our hands
for the foreseeable future.
By itself that is not a problem as that is the beauty of open source,
but for the average user it is a real headache.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davis<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
wrote:
Finally, as Chris said -
many of us are writing apps that target multiple platforms
Well, my comment (from the point of view of applications rather than
library development) was not so much about portability as simple
convenience. Regardless of which method is ultimately used to
establish proper audio scheduling, it would be nice to be able to
handle it through the same audio API as I am already using. PortAudio
and JACK APIs both contain some support for this, PulseAudio is the
odd one out for me.
As a point of interest and comparison that has very little to do with this
debate, I just noticed that pulseaudio *is* being used in the Palm Pre
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
While Jack and Portaudio are not.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Patrick, the point is well made.
The decision's already been taken, excluding the wider linuxaudio
community, and no amount of enthusiastic input here will make any
difference to Lennert's intent, or anyone else involved in this
project.
Seems we got the short straw. Again.
A real shame.
Alex