On 25/04/2013 17:48, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: >> I think you've hit the nail on the head. Complex setups require >> complex software... deal with it. An analogy is that an 18-wheeler >> semi-tractor trailer with a 17-speed manual transmission (plus air brakes >> that require months of training to manage/use) is much more powerful >> than a Chevy Sonic hatchback when it comes to hauling huge loads. But >> for someoneone who merely wants to zip out to the supermarket and buy a >> week's groceries, the hatchback is much more appropriate. >> >> Similarly, PulseAudio may be better at handling complex situations >> like you describe. The yelling and screaming you're hearing are from >> the 99% of people whose setups are not complex enough to justify >> PulseAudio. Making 100% of setups more complex in order to handle the >> 1% of edge cases is simply wrong. > > The "complexity" overhead of pulseaudio is vaaastly overstated here.
And you are vastly overstating the desirability of having pulseaudio enforced on users without very good cause and seem to have underestimated how deep that rabbit hole goes. As others have stated, how many more such packages are there that can be argued to have them on a system? A good first grab would be the number of packages where the users are >=1% and <=99% "It does no harm and might be useful for some" is simply not a valid reason to enforce a package on all users, especially when said package is the latest johnny-come-lately from a wunderkind with a proven reputation for writing invasive code[1] and where the package in question is merely the most recent between 4 valid choices, all of which accomplish the basic action. The world out there is always vastly more complex than you imagine and your[2] system, or all systems of which you have knowledge, can never be considered representative. What is good for you is seldom good for all. I'm not rejecting pulseaudio. It solves a problem that exists and for those that need it PA is a boon. I'm saying that there is no cause for making PA mandatory, or even for having any sound capabilities on a desktop machine at all. [1] "invasive" here means "invasive", it does not imply good, bad, indifferent or any other description of quality. Merely that Poetering's code is invasive and disruptive. [2] "you" here can just as easily mean "any one of the 7 billion humans we've created so far" > > Yes, as a general principle, adding unneeded complexity is bad. But that takes > into account general ideas on the relative tradeoffs of having it there or > not. > But listen to the happy PA users here who don't feel any problem with their > setup. The complexity doesn't bite them. > > Analogy: > 99% of people aren't going to need a11y. But the whole point of installing it > by default on most desktop systems is that you can't predict who will need it, > and _it does not harm_ (or very little harm) to the people who don't. > > So your tradeoffs are: > A) no a11y unless elected by user: > - for the 1%: a11y is a pain to install because the user might not > even be able to see the screen (very big pain) > - for the 99% use a few megabytes less on their disk. (very small gain) > > B) a11y for everyone unless elected removed: > - for the 1%: they can use the system properly (no pain) > - for the 99%: use a few megabytes more on their disk (very small pain) > > Obviously (B) is a better default choice. Ditto pulseaudio. > -- > This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social > Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no > Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none > -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
