PulseAudio has been removed from dports
lists.dragonflybsd.org
PulseAudio has been removed from dports
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#2Removal is the best fix, always. Who needs features anyway.
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#3Removal is the best fix, always. Who needs features anyway.
This is a dumb comment and akin to predicting the iphone would fail because it doesn't have flash support.
Pulseaudio is a very finicky troublesome bit of open source software. The alternative (ALSA) is much more friendly to work with. Any seasoned sysadmin probably welcomes the death of Pulseaudio.
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#4Removal is the best fix, always. Who needs features anyway.
>Who needs features anyway.
Can you name a single feature or use case addressed by PulseAudio that isn't addressed by ALSA?
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#5Removal is the best fix, always. Who needs features anyway.
>Who needs features anyway. Can you name a single feature or use case addressed by PulseAudio that isn't addressed by ALSA?
On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why is it being included anywhere at all?
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#6Removal is the best fix, always. Who needs features anyway.
This is a dumb comment and akin to predicting the iphone would fail because it doesn't have flash support. Pulseaudio is a very finicky troublesome bit of open source software. The alternative (ALSA) is much more friendly to work with. Any seasoned sysadmin probably welcomes the death of Pulseaudio.
Let's be fair: PulseAudio is the way to go if you have to have a partitioned audio system because you are using a multiheaded multiuser system where each seat has a monitor and keyboard and mouse and mic and speakers, and each user needs to be able to control their own volume mixing without root privileges.
For every other case I've seen, ALSA is better and causes fewer problems.
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Who needs features anyway. Can you name a single feature or use case addressed by PulseAudio that isn't addressed by ALSA?
On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why is it being included anywhere at all?
The power of defaults.
Why write for ALSA when the distro ships with PA, and so all of its configuration tools are PA-focused?
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Who needs features anyway. Can you name a single feature or use case addressed by PulseAudio that isn't addressed by ALSA?
On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why is it being included anywhere at all?
Because many devs are on Linux distros, that include PulseAudio by default. Support for *BSD ports is often a bit weak for software like that.
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#9Removal is the best fix, always. Who needs features anyway.
This is a dumb comment and akin to predicting the iphone would fail because it doesn't have flash support. Pulseaudio is a very finicky troublesome bit of open source software. The alternative (ALSA) is much more friendly to work with. Any seasoned sysadmin probably welcomes the death of Pulseaudio.
Just so you and others know, the L in ALSA stands for Linux. It doesn't run on DragonFlyBSD. I think DragonFlyBSD uses a re-implementation of the OSS API that they inherited from FreeBSD. The other BSDs use /dev/audio, which was originally a Sun API.
Re: PulseAudio has been removed from dports
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Who needs features anyway. Can you name a single feature or use case addressed by PulseAudio that isn't addressed by ALSA?
On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why is it being included anywhere at all?
Basically it's a RedHat conspiracy to make open-source programs not work on non-Linux.