On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 03:34 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 24.04.09 23:48, David Woodhouse (dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > I don't think we're just going to decide that Fedora doesn't care about > > these users -- and from what I saw today I don't think it's likely that > > the PA folks will decide that they _do_ care. > > > > So it looks like if we keep PulseAudio as the core around which Fedora > > audio support is based, we're _always_ going to need to keep something > > extra to fill the functionality gap. > > Oh great. This sounds like an invitation to stop working on cleaning > up the volume control situation entirely. If we never can get rid of > the old cruft and need to prominently feature it in all future release > then why even try? I believe that our user interface people are good enough that they can find some middle ground -- somewhere a long way from the oft-cited alsa-mixer-of-doom, and much closer to the nice but oversimplified F-11 implementation of gnome-volume-control -- but which actually lets people have better control over their hardware _when_ they need it. I don't believe that we're really limited to one extreme or the other. So no, I don't believe that it's an invitation to stop working on it at all. It's merely an invitation to do better. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation Hell, I suck at UI design and even _I_ can make a UI simpler just by ripping functionality out of it. Surely we have people who are better than that? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
