4 ms·

On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why i

On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why is it being included anywhere at all?

dleslie 10y ago
The power of defaults. Why write for ALSA when the distro ships with PA, and so all of its configuration tools are PA-focused?
- mveety 10y ago
  Also pulseaudio allows them to sorta support OSS and whatever else pulseaudio will output to for free.
orkoden 10y ago
Because many devs are on Linux distros, that include PulseAudio by default. Support for *BSD ports is often a bit weak for software like that.
lmm 10y ago
Basically it's a RedHat conspiracy to make open-source programs not work on non-Linux.
- GranPC 10y ago
  I don't see how building your program against ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) would make it more compatible with non-Linux OSs.
  - pyre 10y ago
    Maybe @lmm wishes that Redhat threw support behind OSS4? Is that supported under the *BSDs?
janoc 10y ago
Except ALSA cannot do everything that PA does. ALSA is low-level Linux sound API that PA builds on. Read the post above, it explains the difference. Basically, if you want multiple sounds playing at the same time (e.g. music + desktop notifications) and you don't have hardware mixer (many common sound chips don't and rely on Windows drivers/sound system to provide the functionality), you are out of luck (no, the ancient dmix plugin is not a solution!). Bluetooth audio (headsets) doesn't really work without PA. Configuring apps to use different devices (music should go to speakers and video conferencing to a headset ...) is a pain without PA - most applications don't let you select the input/output devices. And many other things. ALSA is good, but without PA the sound support on a modern Linux desktop would be stuck right in the late 90s. Is it necessary? Not strictly, but it is one heck of a convenience that most don't even realize they have. Here is a good post from 2008 explaining many of the issues PulseAudio solves and addressing some of the old FUD: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/jeffrey-stedfast.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/jeffrey-stedfast.html Unfortunately, there are tons of people with strong opinions about both PA and systemd but very little actual knowledge about what these components do and what issues they address in a modern Linux/Unix system. But that doesn't prevent them from spreading BS FUD and conspiracies about this or that group trying to dominate the market or take over the competing Linux distros.
- dTal 10y ago
  >no, the ancient dmix plugin is not a solution! Given that that's exactly what it's for, why isn't it?

On the flip side, if everything can be done by ALSA, and PA is seemingly objectively worse, for what reason are people building their software against PA? Why is it being included anywhere at all?

dleslie 10y ago

The power of defaults. Why write for ALSA when the distro ships with PA, and so all of its configuration tools are PA-focused?

mveety 10y ago
Also pulseaudio allows them to sorta support OSS and whatever else pulseaudio will output to for free.

orkoden 10y ago

Because many devs are on Linux distros, that include PulseAudio by default. Support for *BSD ports is often a bit weak for software like that.

lmm 10y ago

Basically it's a RedHat conspiracy to make open-source programs not work on non-Linux.

GranPC 10y ago
I don't see how building your program against ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) would make it more compatible with non-Linux OSs.
- pyre 10y ago
  Maybe @lmm wishes that Redhat threw support behind OSS4? Is that supported under the *BSDs?

janoc 10y ago

Except ALSA cannot do everything that PA does. ALSA is low-level Linux sound API that PA builds on. Read the post above, it explains the difference. Basically, if you want multiple sounds playing at the same time (e.g. music + desktop notifications) and you don't have hardware mixer (many common sound chips don't and rely on Windows drivers/sound system to provide the functionality), you are out of luck (no, the ancient dmix plugin is not a solution!). Bluetooth audio (headsets) doesn't really work without PA. Configuring apps to use different devices (music should go to speakers and video conferencing to a headset ...) is a pain without PA - most applications don't let you select the input/output devices. And many other things. ALSA is good, but without PA the sound support on a modern Linux desktop would be stuck right in the late 90s. Is it necessary? Not strictly, but it is one heck of a convenience that most don't even realize they have. Here is a good post from 2008 explaining many of the issues PulseAudio solves and addressing some of the old FUD: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/jeffrey-stedfast.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/jeffrey-stedfast.html Unfortunately, there are tons of people with strong opinions about both PA and systemd but very little actual knowledge about what these components do and what issues they address in a modern Linux/Unix system. But that doesn't prevent them from spreading BS FUD and conspiracies about this or that group trying to dominate the market or take over the competing Linux distros.

dTal 10y ago
>no, the ancient dmix plugin is not a solution! Given that that's exactly what it's for, why isn't it?