On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Arnold Krille <arnold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Where does PulseAudio come into that picture? - When the gnome-guys realized > that esd is out of date and they want a new api/lib. Unfortunately they > decided to a) write their own and not adopt what is there and b) to go > audio-only which means no chance of KDE adopting it (apart from the fact that > kde already has Phonon). So PulseAudio is by design not _the_ solution for > sound on the desktop. It is just another middle-layer for sound. And why > should a desktop-app-dev adopt PulseAudio when he would have to use another > api/lib for video? Isn't it better to use one api/lib that has both and even > does them in sync? Isn't comparing Phonon and PulseAudio apples and oranges though? If I understand the situation correctly Phonon is just an abstraction layer that interfaces with various multimedia frameworks, whereas PulseAudio is an actual sound server. Even if the gnome guys had adopted Phonon that wouldn't have fixed the esd situation (old, unmaintained sound server). PulseAudio is a drop in replacement for esd and if you want to use Phonon you could (I assume at least in theory) use PulseAudio as a backend for it (or PulseAudio via gstreamer or xinelib or whatever). > And PulseAudio claims to unify both desktop-needs and pro-audio-needs. Another > place it will fail big time. Because it will never be good enough to have > ardour use PulseAudio. (Hint: Jack was designed for ardour...) > Are there fundamental design decisions in PulseAudio that would make this impossible, as opposed to just difficult or a lot of work? (sincere question, I have no idea) As cool as Jack is surely it would be nice to have a sound architecture on linux that seamlessly supported pro-needs as well as typical desktop needs? Cheers....Steve _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
