On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 6:42 AM David Runge <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2022-01-25 16:02:29 (-0700), Paul Davis wrote:
> Again, PipeWire *is* JACK and it is also PulseAudio. It it not a
> replacement for PulseAudio, it is a replacement for both of them. Once
> you are using PipeWire, everything you've read about JACK bridging
> etc. becomes incorrect and irrelevant.
That is technically not necessarily true, as it depends on how the build
of pipewire is configured
I was wrong, for sure.
But as a policy question, I think this is probably a serious mistake by the pipewire team (probably mostly just Wim). It has been bad enough having 2 independent, different implementations of the JACK API. Now Pipewire adds a 3rd (not great, but also not so bad), but then in addition says "oh, you don't *have* to use this implementation, the others are still available". In terms of the famed "user flexibility" this is, uhm, cool I suppose. But in terms of Pipewire's broader goals, it just adds to (and continues) the mess.
I hope they change this in the future once the Pipewire JACK implementation is suitable (or maybe even before).
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
