On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 12:45 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 05/08/10 12:16 did gyre and gimble: > > It's not really clear to me what it is or what it is trying to do over > > and above PulseAudio's capabilities: > > > > http://roaraudio.keep-cool.org/ > > Having looked a little beyond the marketing fluff, it seems to me to be > totally lacking in almost all regard! Totally lacking in almost all regard? Using what criteria? To me it looks like RoarAudio provides a respectable amount of features. Anyway, I would also like to hear about the goals of the RoarAudio developers. Since to my knowledge there has been about zero communication between these two projects, I doubt I'll get any answers from pulseaudio-discuss, so I'll cross-post this to the RoarAudio mailing list. I found this in the manual: "It is designed to replace the very old sound server Enlightened Sound Daemon (EsounD) and add modern features as well as features needed by Radio and TV Stations. This includes support for Web Streaming via Icecast and simular software." (I think this should be on the front page of the project web site.) According to that description the goals are to be Gnome's chosen sound system and also to be the best system for radio/tv station web streaming. I don't see much point in the first goal (I believe PulseAudio was a fine ESD replacement already two years ago when the first release of RoarAudio was made), but the web streaming part sounds sensible. So, how do you, RoarAudio people, see the role of all the various sound servers on Linux? My view is that PulseAudio is the best solution for general desktop use, while Jack is very good for music production (and many other "pro-audio" use cases). Do you agree? Would RoarAudio then be the best choice for streaming live content on the web? -- Tanu Kaskinen
