Martin Stransky (stransky@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >The sound test failed when I had rhythmbox running. > > Do you think it's a bug? Depends. Opening up a gst pipleine to play the test sound may be overkill. > >1) I'm supposed to pick a PCM device and know what the difference is > > between: > > > > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 > > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - MIC ADC > > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - MIC2 ADC > > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - ADC2 > > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - IEC958 > > > > intuitively? (Moreover, I'm asked to do this in two different places.) > > These names depend on driver writer, if you don't know just use the > default. Optionally I can move it to some "advanced" settings. What situations would someone logically wan to suggest a non-default? Using SPDIF? Something else? > >3) How is the user supposed to know whether to use kudzu, /proc, or HAL > > detection? Why are they even *given* a choice??? > > > >I'm failing to see what sort of usage case this is solving. Surely this > >should all just work? > > It's because: > > kudzu detects only internal cards (kudzu doesn't detect USB cards well), > but it works even if you don't have loaded drivers. So you can reload > drivers for your card if something bad happens, you have ISA card and so on. But this isn't something the user can fix, so why are we handling it here? I guess my concern is, why are we giving the user a 'test if it works -> ok, it didn't -> punt' algorithm? Generally, they would get the same result if they started up their sound app and noticed it didn't work - what specific cases is this tool able to fix for them? > >(I note we have a completely different Sound preference anyway, which is > >somewhat simpler.) > > I've never heard anything about "Sound preference", so if there is > something like that can I read it somewhere? System->Prefereces->Sound under GNOME. KDE may have something else entirely. Bill -- Fedora-config-list mailing list Fedora-config-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-config-list