On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Roman Beslik <rabeslik at gmail.com> wrote: > On 17.04.12 05:12, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Roman Beslik<rabeslik at gmail.com> ?wrote: >>> >>> Hello. >>> >>> IMHO this is because PulseAudio is somewhat buggy to go into polished >>> distributions. I hardly could use it on Arch Linux, and I am accustomed >>> to >>> general Arch Linux's instability. (Arch Linux is bleeding-edge by >>> definition.) Distributions jumped to PulseAudio too soon. Also, the >>> developers of PulseAudio could split the source code into stable and >>> trunk >>> branches. >> >> >> Instability? I'm not sure which Arch Linux you use, but mine is fine, >> with pulseaudio (and without gnome) as well.... Extrapolating a single >> user's experiences to a distribution or project is hardly indicative, >> and Arch offers you a choice on using pulse or not (Gnome doesn't, but >> that's another story). > > Bear in mind that you also are extrapolating your experience. Actually, the > original poster (OP) is talking about bugs, so this is at least a two user > experience. > > There are a lot of complaints. E.g., search "crackling sound" on Arch Linux > forums. I even saw complaints on forums not dedicated to Linux at all. > Negative image of PulseAudio is becoming folklore. > > Returning to OP's claim, please, share your thoughts. Do you think that the > claim is false or you have competing suggestions at hand? I stated that my install is fine, you stated that pulseaudio is buggy based on your install. But since you wish to extrapolate, please take a look at [1] and the 43.43% install-rate of pulseaudio in Arch systems (compared to 35.57% install-rate for the Gnome DE, so at least 8% installed pulseaudio by choice, not by its being a forced dependency). This is from 60,798 submissions. How many complaints are there on pulseaudio in the Arch forums again? I've seen many complaints about linux-3.3 as well (to do with ath3k currently) - should the kernel have a negative image as well? In my experience the reporting of problems related to pulseaudio (and I do read almost every thread on pulseaudio that appears on the forum), there are two types of problems:- 1) PEBKAC - about half the problems. These are the same users who make mistakes editing config files, update repo database without doing a full upgrade, and only know the AUR as 'that thing accessible through yaourt'. This includes your 'crackling sound' group, because really - the solution to this problem (which is actually a problem with the sound card drivers) is readily available online with a simple config file change 2) Unsupported soundcard/use-case - primarily 7.1/5.1 soundcards or running system-wide Neither of these indicates a big problem with pulseaudio per se (arguably number 2 does, but the technical reasons behind it are sound IMO). Does pulse have bugs? Sure. Does it have MORE bugs than other software? Highly unlikely. Regarding OP - yes, Debian should update, but that's something that can't happen with the way Debian is structured, I believe.
