Comment 256 for bug 371897

(In reply to comment #149)
> Sure what a crime from Scott to offer both, the 1.0 and the dev release.

"wine1.2" is a poor choice though. Even "wine-1.2" would be better. Debian has "wine-unstable" now.

> Average users don't have any problems with the latency of a good configured
> pulse audio.

Except when using Wine, Skype etc. Hence the issue. And given that dmix does not suffer from these same latency issues, it's obviously a problem with pulse. Face it, pulse is virtually broken by design, and was adopted far too early by distros like *buntu and Fedora.

> Professional users who need very low latency need JACK.

Or hardware-accelerated ALSA, which is disabled by pulse.

> To ask 90% of the unexperienced user to deeply manipulate their system to have
> sound work in order to make it easier for a handful "professionals" sounds very
> wise to me.

Wine can't support a broken distro. If it's really so difficult to disable pulseaudio, it's not Wine's fault but the distro's.

> There exists a dev who is willing and able to deliver a solution but instead of
> a welcome he earns only prejudice.

There have been specific objections to the proposed winepulse *code* (not just the concept) before and I as far as I know the few people who have worked on it are no longer attempting to get it accepted upstream. Patches have to be sent to wine-patches mailing list for review.