3 ms·
> "Audio has "just worked" for years now, thanks to PulseAudio." For your use cases perhaps, but it's not suitable for all use cases in the same way CoreAudio
by ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Audio has "just worked" for years now, thanks to PulseAudio."
For your use cases perhaps, but it's not suitable for all use cases in the same way CoreAudio on OSX is. Music production is a key weak point, which is why JACK and PulseAudio are both required to have what CoreAudio offers out of the box.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoThere are a few options to allow for Jack and PulseAudio to coexist: http://jackaudio.org/faq/pulseaudio_and_jack.html http://jackaudio.org/faq/pulseaudio_and_jack.html There is a reason why there is both Jack and Pulse...they meet different needs (pro-audio vs desktop), and it is not necessarily a bad thing to have separate tools to handle separate needs.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago> "and it is not necessarily a bad thing to have separate tools to handle separate needs." It's not a bad thing to have different high-level tools for different needs, but in the case of lower level frameworks it's suboptimal unless interoperability is seamless. In the case of PulseAudio and JACK that interoperability is not seamless, and is fraught with problems, so in this regard Linux audio is worse than CoreAudio.