On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 10:04 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: > So PulseAudio is by design not _the_ solution for > sound on the desktop. It is just another middle-layer for sound. reasonable people might choose to disagree about this. > 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? gstreamer exists for this purpose. whether its the right solution is not a question i am in a position to address. it is, however, vitally important to distinguish between APIs intended for: * intra-application management of media streams * delivery/receipt of media streams to endpoints outside of an application PulseAudio is aimed at the second task; gstreamer is aimed at the first. my impression is that Phonon is attempting to cover both. good? bad? *you* decide :) > 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...) Lennart (PA's author) fully understands how and why JACK is different from PulseAudio, and has long term to plans to try to provide jack-server functionality within pulse. PA also has a JACK backend already, so that you can use "desktop" apps while JACK is running and still hear them. --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
