Ubuntu
wine package

  1. Bug #371897
  2. Comment #183

Comment 183 for bug 371897

Revision history for this message
In , Walldorf2000 (walldorf2000) wrote :

[quote]Wine->Pulse->ALSA works better then Wine->ALSA->Pulse->ALSA?
[/quote]
Wine->Pulse->ALSA sounds a lot better for me.

Sure any sound server also has disadvantages. But Pulse is there per default in the majority of the current LINIX desktops and this is for good reasons. Gnome, KDE, XFCE all use Pulse. Thus it is not just one more sound server but currently the sound server for LINUX.

There really should be no need for Wine to suspend Pulse.

It should only be necessary as an extra option for special requirements but not for the average user.

Thus it is no question for me that Wine needs a Puls audio driver. The question is if there is somebody willing and capable of writing one with sufficient quality and support.

This seems to be the case. Thus supporting the people who write the driver would be much more efficient then arguing against it.

That there would be much less need for a Pulse driver if Pulse should improve the ALSA layer is not an argument against a Pulse driver.