Le 23 juin 09 à 17:04, Paul Davis a écrit : > 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
I would certainly help if we can keep the discussion on "technical issues" a bit more, since I don't think the subject is completely closed yet... (like the issue with sched-rt-group thing for instance... http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~rosentha/linux/2.6.26.5/docs/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt) Stephane _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
