14 Apr
2008
14 Apr
'08
12:12 p.m.
Am Montag, 14. April 2008 schrieb Steve Lindsay:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Arnold Krille
<arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
Where is the difference between an abstraction layer by design and a
soundserver that can make use of other soundservers?
The main argument for using PA is that it can make use of many things already
out there. Which is exactly what an abstraction layer does. So we are talking
apples and oranges that can also act as apples here. Which makes it valid to
compare the apples-part.
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Where does PulseAudio come into that picture? -
When the gnome-guys
realized that esd is out of date and they want a new api/lib.
Unfortunately they decided to a) write their own and not adopt what is
there and b) to go audio-only which means no chance of KDE adopting it
(apart from the fact that kde already has Phonon). So PulseAudio is by
design not _the_ solution for sound on the desktop. It is just another
middle-layer for sound. And why should a desktop-app-dev adopt PulseAudio
when he would have to use another api/lib for video? Isn't it better to
use one api/lib that has both and even does them in sync?
Isn't comparing
Phonon and PulseAudio apples and oranges though? If I
understand the situation correctly Phonon is just an abstraction layer
that interfaces with various multimedia frameworks, whereas PulseAudio
is an actual sound server.