© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
a60fb26
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #158)
Again another great contributione to the flameware. Do you have any idea what Stefan was writing about? Maybe you should read his comment again.
(In reply to comment #160)
> 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.,
This is not true. JACK ist the sound server of joice for low latency needs. It does not claim to be a low latency solution. Pulse and JACK devs work on making both sound servers working together nicely.
> 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.
I don't know the Wine set-up in detail but AFAIK it is not your decision and I'm very glad about that.
You simply don't know what Pulse is good for and cultivate your prejudice.
ALSA via Pulse does have a higher latency than a direct Pulse API. Thus you demand a "definite, demonstrated need" on one side but claim that latency is the highest priority on the other side.