2012/1/28 Heiko Baums <email@example.com>:
> Am Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:29:33 +0100
> schrieb Ralf Mardorf <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> The majority of Linux users on non-audio Linux mailing lists praise
>> PA, ...
> And the most computer users use Windows. So what's the point? That
> doesn't mean that Windows is better than Linux or that Windows works
> I'm sure that most Linux users just use their stereo or maybe surround
> SoundBlaster like or onboard AC'97 sound card and not a
> (semi-)professional audio card.
> For those people PulseAudio may work, but that doesn't mean that it
> really works, because they just don't see all the flaws. And it
> definitely doesn't work with those ice1712 cards. And I've seen a lot
> of discussions in Linux and IT forums where PulseAudio absolutely
> wasn't praised, where most users said that it is crap or at least
> unnecessary, because of the missing hardware support, and because most
> of the features are already done by ALSA itself out-of-the-box.
>> I always had issues with PA and I never had an issue when I replaced
>> PA by dummy packages, but seemingly there's a work flow by a majority
>> of Linux users, where having PA installed is an advantage.
>> You might take a look at Debian users mailing list. On KDE4 PA is
>> using 2% CPU already when doing nothing. For some people using 2% for
>> nothing isn't a bug, it's ok for them.
> So you see, that some people just don't care, maybe because they don't
> know better. I would call those 2% buggy and a waste of resources.
> Another reason not to using PulseAudio.
>> Why should I trust that a musician is a good drummer, when she's a bad
>> guitarist? Perhaps because she's a drummer
> This comparison is flawed. A guitarist wouldn't go on stage and drum,
> if he can't drum, and vice versa. But Lennart writes a software for
> something he at least doesn't know enough about (PulseAudio) and tries
> to have this declared as standard, and at the same time writes another
> software (systemd), which also has several issues or is at least not
> really compatible with existing systems or script as far as I know,
> instead of first fixing the first one, so that it really works. And
> then he thinks he has to get involved in other things at the same time.
> This is something completely different, and this is what I'm worried
> If he would do one thing and would really try to fix its issues and he
> would really try to learn how to fix them, I wouldn't say much. But I
> don't see this. So how should I trust him and his software if he gets
> himself involved in several different things if he's not able to do the
> one and even the other thing correctly?
Does this really need to be rehashed yet again? This isn't arch
related yet these PA back and forths keeps popping up in the mailboxes
of all the registered people looking for arch-related content.
I didn't follow the original discussion so I cant argument on that
extent, but the last thing we need on this list is more noise.