On 28-11-2010 16:21, Yaro Kasear wrote: > ... if they were to actually test this, > would FLOOD this entire discussion with problems that would make the > Arch devs reconsider this decision. So you are making the assumption that using pulse still causes the same problems it used to cause before (on other distros at that). To top that you are assuming that it is pulse that is (or was) broken and not the alsa drivers that do the actual talking to the hardware. Just because something seems to work or claims to support something it doesn't mean it works well for all the cases, this was most probably the case with alsa drivers and it has improved a lot lately. When I bought the notebook I'm using now I've used ossv4 for some time because I couldn't stand the crappy sound that alsa (and only alsa, apps would output directly to alsa) would put out at the time, I have given alsa and pulse and alsa a try again and it's what I've been using for maybe a year now with _zero_ problems, even with apps that don't know what pulse is. >From your other posts it seems you have some kind of pet hate for pulse and present arguments that don't really apply currently, I'm sure there are some people here that also have a pet hate for the way that the kde folks seem to have to reinvent the wheel but don't spam the list with it. Please present _objective_ advantages and disadvantages of using pulse+alsa when compared with ossv4 or alsa + something else instead of just saying that pulse sucks. -- Mauro Santos
