Comment 319 for bug 371897

(In reply to comment #211)
> No, my argument is based on technical objections, the details of which do not
> belong on Wine's bugzilla.

Links to where those details were elaborated for the _current_ state of both PulseAudio and winepulse will do just fine, thanks.

> The argument is that there is no evidence that winealsa cannot be
> improved sufficiently to work well with Pulse.
> Until such evidence is presented, a separate winepulse driver is
> unlikely to be considered.

It's impossible to prove non-existence. That's the most basic logical fallacy.

(In reply to comment #203)
> I will continue to object to peoples demands that "Wine must support
> pulseaudio" (or more specifically this particular patch set) based on the ad
> populum fallacy.

When it comes to Use Cases, there is no ad populum fallacy like you try to claim.

(In reply to comment #203)
> I have no objection to pulseaudio being supported *correctly*.
(In reply to comment #211)
> I'd personally like to see progress in supporting pulse, as long as
> it's done in the right way. It might not be very clear what the right way
> is but what is clear is that the current patch does not meet the required
> standards.

Links welcome.

(In reply to comment #211)
> winesd

ESD is dead. It has been deprecated by PulseAudio. Stop beating a dead horse.
The backwards compatibility of PulseAudio to ESD is not the longterm solution.