On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Gene Heskett<gene.hesk...@verizon.net> wrote: > > PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
This type of response is incredibly unhelpful. Lennart and others involved with PA have made their goals clear, their design assumptions clear, their overall design philosophy clear, and their use cases clear. PA continues to evolve toward fulfilling all of these. How is that a screwup? What other system, real or proposed, is attempting to tackle the issues that PA is? You can argue that the use cases don't matter to you, you can argue that PA needs to be "more optional", you can suggest that some of the design assumptions are wrong, and so on. But how is it a "screwup"? How does labelling it in this way help anything? Even if PA isn't "about" anything that you think is important, enough other people with different goals and use cases have decided that it very much is about things that matter very much to them and the user groups they try to serve. I would really like it if Lennart continued participating in this thread, and with the LAD community in general, but he has pretty ample reason not to given the tone of this kind of response. --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
