6 ms·

The problem isn't Linux idiots (whatever that means) or their cautionary tendencies, it's Canonical.

by ihsw 14y ago

chao- 14y ago
Care to elaborate? Your comment reads as a sentence-long "NO, YOU!" right now. What about Canonical is a problem, and who are they causing the problem for? As a "Linux idiot" myself, I hear your disapproval of the parent post, but am curious to hear the details that support your opinion (I might be able to learn something from it).
- LukeShu 14y ago
  This is how I parsed the conversation: pilgrim689: Why is everybody hating on Canonical for ditching X11? sneak: Because they're "Linux idiots" who love X11. ihsw: They don't love X11, they just hate Canonical. ihsw is saying that the change isn't getting negative reactions because of the change itself, but because it is being made by Canonical. edit: I accidentally using the wrong verb form.
  - zanny 14y ago
    I thought everyone was hating on Canonical for ditching X because rather than support the fledgling standard replacement for X, Wayland, they once again (just like with systemd vs upstart, compiz vs mutter/kdm) go off and do their own thing. And if it turns out like either of those, they end up with an inferior barely maintained product that gets pushed to the sidelines once they show it off on a showroom floor.
    - LukeShu 14y ago
      Skimming the article, Canonical has some legitimate criticisms of Wayland, and are working on something that doesn't have those problems. Yay, this would be good! Except that it's by Canonical, and as you said, "Canonical never delivers". (That wasn't a quote from you, it was an iteration of "OP (never) delivers")
      - zanny 14y ago
        What I said was that when Canonical does deliver, they let the delivery wither and die without support because they are spread like a teaspoon of mayo thin on their footlong distro sandwich. See: Upstart, Compiz, Software Center.
        LukeShu 14y ago
        We agree, I just called that not delivering.
raverbashing 14y ago
Yes The linux idiots have one glaring example: PulseAudio Throw away user experience, system stability, judicious use of CPU for what? It certainly improves certain details of the user experience, when it works correctly, also usually consuming more CPU than flash player
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Am I the only person in the world who has never had anything but a pleasant experience with PulseAudio? The first time I noticed that I was using it, I had already been using it for a year...
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    Let me ask you some questions then: - How often do you reboot your computer - What audio softwares you use the most For me, PA crashes around once a week (and this is with the latest version I tried), or just plain stops working (like muting the sound, garbled sound, etc) Not to mention the delay that happens while switching songs in mplayer for example. Use ALSA and song switch is instantaneous.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > - How often do you reboot your computer Once every two or three months, when I remember to apply updates. > - What audio softwares you use the most Only flash (youtube, primarily. Also youtube's html5 player probably, I haven't paid much attention to that) and mplayer. A few years ago, XMMS2. I used to use an XMMS2 client I wrote for music, now I just use some bash scripts and mplayer; I can't say I've noticed any delay while switching songs with mplayer or XMMS2. When I play music from my laptop through my raspberry pi connected to my TV with pusleaudio, then I notice an audio delay. That is the only sore spot pulseaudio has ever presented me.
      - raverbashing 14y ago
        Very interesting. I thought some instability may be due to PA staying up for a long time, but apparently not. About the delay, try this: mplayer *mp3 (in a directory with mp3 files, of course), then press >. There should be a significant delay in switching songs (like, 0.5s). Make sure mplayer shows it's using the [Pulse] driver With ALSA this is very fast

The problem isn't Linux idiots (whatever that means) or their cautionary tendencies, it's Canonical.

by ihsw 14y ago

The problem isn't Linux idiots (whatever that means) or their cautionary tendencies, it's Canonical.

chao- 14y ago

Care to elaborate? Your comment reads as a sentence-long "NO, YOU!" right now. What about Canonical is a problem, and who are they causing the problem for? As a "Linux idiot" myself, I hear your disapproval of the parent post, but am curious to hear the details that support your opinion (I might be able to learn something from it).

LukeShu 14y ago
This is how I parsed the conversation: pilgrim689: Why is everybody hating on Canonical for ditching X11? sneak: Because they're "Linux idiots" who love X11. ihsw: They don't love X11, they just hate Canonical. ihsw is saying that the change isn't getting negative reactions because of the change itself, but because it is being made by Canonical. edit: I accidentally using the wrong verb form.
- zanny 14y ago
  I thought everyone was hating on Canonical for ditching X because rather than support the fledgling standard replacement for X, Wayland, they once again (just like with systemd vs upstart, compiz vs mutter/kdm) go off and do their own thing. And if it turns out like either of those, they end up with an inferior barely maintained product that gets pushed to the sidelines once they show it off on a showroom floor.
  - LukeShu 14y ago
    Skimming the article, Canonical has some legitimate criticisms of Wayland, and are working on something that doesn't have those problems. Yay, this would be good! Except that it's by Canonical, and as you said, "Canonical never delivers". (That wasn't a quote from you, it was an iteration of "OP (never) delivers")
    - zanny 14y ago
      What I said was that when Canonical does deliver, they let the delivery wither and die without support because they are spread like a teaspoon of mayo thin on their footlong distro sandwich. See: Upstart, Compiz, Software Center.
      - LukeShu 14y ago
        We agree, I just called that not delivering.

raverbashing 14y ago

Yes The linux idiots have one glaring example: PulseAudio Throw away user experience, system stability, judicious use of CPU for what? It certainly improves certain details of the user experience, when it works correctly, also usually consuming more CPU than flash player

jlgreco 14y ago
Am I the only person in the world who has never had anything but a pleasant experience with PulseAudio? The first time I noticed that I was using it, I had already been using it for a year...
- raverbashing 14y ago
  Let me ask you some questions then: - How often do you reboot your computer - What audio softwares you use the most For me, PA crashes around once a week (and this is with the latest version I tried), or just plain stops working (like muting the sound, garbled sound, etc) Not to mention the delay that happens while switching songs in mplayer for example. Use ALSA and song switch is instantaneous.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > - How often do you reboot your computer Once every two or three months, when I remember to apply updates. > - What audio softwares you use the most Only flash (youtube, primarily. Also youtube's html5 player probably, I haven't paid much attention to that) and mplayer. A few years ago, XMMS2. I used to use an XMMS2 client I wrote for music, now I just use some bash scripts and mplayer; I can't say I've noticed any delay while switching songs with mplayer or XMMS2. When I play music from my laptop through my raspberry pi connected to my TV with pusleaudio, then I notice an audio delay. That is the only sore spot pulseaudio has ever presented me.
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      Very interesting. I thought some instability may be due to PA staying up for a long time, but apparently not. About the delay, try this: mplayer *mp3 (in a directory with mp3 files, of course), then press >. There should be a significant delay in switching songs (like, 0.5s). Make sure mplayer shows it's using the [Pulse] driver With ALSA this is very fast