(In reply to comment #203) > Seriously, there are better reasons for pulse to be supported > than this.
Could you please state them?
> I have no objection to pulseaudio being supported *correctly*.
Could you please define what means "correctly" to you, too?
(In reply to comment #203)
> Seriously, there are better reasons for pulse to be supported
> than this.
Could you please state them?
> I have no objection to pulseaudio being supported *correctly*.
Could you please define what means "correctly" to you, too?