Re: [LAU] perhaps why some of us have more trouble w/ pulseaudio than others (ICE1712/M-audio delta problem w/ pulseaudio)

Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:41 PM, david <gnome@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>> rosea.grammostola wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 23:34 -1000, david wrote:
>>>> Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@email-addr-hidden>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This musing about "broken" alsa-drivers that need to be "fixed" in the
>>>>>> thread at PA increases the bad feeling about PA's relation and awarenes
>>>>>> to pro-audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best regs
>>>>>> HZN
>>>>> PA is specifically for 'desktop' usage, pro-audio isn't a part of
>>>>> that. If you're doing pro-audio you'd be running JACK anyway. I
>>>>> struggle to understand why a user would want PA, with all the inherent
>>>>> latency concerns (compared to JACK) to control their pro-audio
>>>>> soundcard.
>>>> Perhaps Pulse really just wants to get rid of JACK in the first place?
>>> ???
>> Replace JACK entirely with Pulse, become the only audio server game in town?
>> ;-)
>
> Yeah, world domination is ALWAYS on the agenda I'm sure. Which is why
> Pulseaudio automatically suspends its control of a sound card with
> jack2 requests control =)

Maybe in some version of PulseAudio you have. The one I used to have
here did not. So I removed it. Simpler that way. I guess I still
consider PulseAudio unnecessary for any purpose.

-- 
David
gnome@email-addr-hidden
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user