On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 18:48 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Mario:
> 
> > Thing is this, OSS is regarded to be the red headed stepchild in the Linux 
> > world,
> > _but_ it's APIs are preferred over the messy ALSA (which offers OSS 
> > emulation). 
>  > Everyone still equates the real OSS with the ancient code still left 
> in the Linux
>  > kernel.
> 
> Competition is good.  People will start to appreciate the new OSS more
> when it is more ready for public consumption.  Sun is probably to blame
> for it taking so long.
> 
> > Anyway, from what I've gathered, especially with the announcement of 
> > Pulseaudio 
>  > being integrated into Ubuntu 8, everyone holds high hopes to it. If 
> it's API is
>  > clean and usable, maintenance on OSS plugins in various applications
> > might  stagnate in favor of Pulseaudio ones. What doesn't help is that the
>  > project leader is "coincidentally" also spreading  FUD about OSS.
> 
> My understanding is that few applications are being written to
> PulseAudio.  I believe even the PulseAudio maintainer recommends that
> applications not use the PulseAudio API directly but instead use it
> only indirectly via pluggable mechanisms like GStreamer.  These same
> pluggable interfaces tend to also support OSS, so the existence (or not)
> of PulseAudio should be mostly invisible to end-users or people
> compiling code.  Since OSS has many of the features that PulseAudio
> provides, these pluggable interfaces can simply make use of these OSS
> features when using their OSS plugin, rather than needing PulseAudio.
> 
> I understand PulseAudio makes the most sense when you decide on a design
> where all audio programs all redirect their output through PulseAudio.
> I believe Red Hat and Ubuntu are hacking everything from esd to
> GStreamer, etc. to forward output to PulseAudio to achieve this.
> 
> I'm not sure this design makes a lot of sense on Solaris, especially
> since OSS will provide many of the benefits that PulseAudio already
> offers.
> 
> Brian
> 

I might be missing something here, but I am unfamiliar with the view
that PulseAudio is meant to address ALSA's shortcomings. I remember the
project's primary goal as Polypaudio was to rewrite Esound (which has
always been flaky) and extend it with network transparency. 

While old-school sound server tasks like mixing and sample rate
conversion are made obsolete by a modern sound architecture, PulseAudio
provides services outside of that realm, although its module system
might be considered to be conflicting with GStreamer.

This is the first implementation of network-transparent audio that I've
seen gain critical mass (remember NAS?), and just for that I find it
very valuable.

-Albert


Reply via email to