Comment 265 for bug 371897

(In reply to comment #159)
> So..... I'm tired of everyone saying get rid of OSS and just have ALSA because
> everything supports ALSA. FYI, BSD only supports OSS, and ALSA has OSS
> emulation, so if we drop anything, it should be everything but OSS. OSS has
> been around forever and virtually everyone supports it.

OSS4 has ALSA emulation (and software mixing), and I hear it's quite good. However, OSS4 won't get into the Linux kernel due to licensing issues ...

> Are the pulse devs willing to improve it? As far as I can tell yes. But their
> primary users are "average" joe. They use ALSA as a base because it has the
> drivers, but they provide a simple yet powerful front end to users.

Technically, ALSA isn't the only backend that pulse supports, it's just that it's the primary backend on Linux systems because OSS in Linux is terrible by modern standards.

But part of the problem is that pulse is marketed as a general solution to all audio problems. They claim it has low latency etc., which fuels calls for it to replace every other audio API. However, on closer inspection, it's unsuited to anything more than the most basic usage.

The point remains that winepulse will only be accepted if a definite, demonstrated need is presented - i.e. that winealsa (and other drivers) can't be made pulse-friendly. The suggestion of redesigning wine's audio subsystem, although time-consuming and resource heavy, is the first stepping stone in this direction.