On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 13:15 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:51:01 +0000 > schrieb John K Pate <j.k.pate@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > does every single question about pulseaudio really need to be > > confronted with a holy war against pulseaudio? > > As long as it is such a crap, still doesn't work, doesn't support > every sound and audio card, causes more problems than it solves - maybe > with a few exceptions -, and is so extremely hyped and forced to being > installed as a dependency by several distros and PA fanboys, I guess it > will. > > If PA would be treated as a normal, and especially optional piece of > software which can, but doesn't need to be installed, and/or if the PA > devs will do their homework and fix all the issues which always lead to > those discussions, I guess those discussions will end. But only then. > > Heiko The OP is willing to blacklist pcspkr and IIUC pulseaudio isn't the cause for this particular problem. For my kind of usage the PC speaker is very important to signal events, since I can't use "desktop sounds". The OP explained why he needs PA, so we now should stop talking about PA. This issue is solved. OTOH, I agree that we always should point to PA, if somebody sent a request regarding to audio issues, while PA is installed. It has nothing to do with a war, it's simply a shot in the dark, that most of the times will fix audio issues. I wonder about that tendency, that referring to PA is unwanted. If somebody would run into issues with e.g. a DE, an app to handle networks, it's ok to recommend testing another DE, app to handle networks etc.. There are just a few borked things, where it's completely unwanted to portend that they are buggy, experimental or known for issues. - Ralf
