On 12.11.2011 21:21, Colin Guthrie wrote:
Ben Bucksch wrote:
On 09.11.2011 11:56, Colin Guthrie wrote:
Now consider two users on an accessible system: One is visually impaired
the other is not
- at the same time. OK, but that's really an unrealistic case now.
No I meant two users on the system. Only one uses the machine at any
given time.
My point was mainly that the control over whether the sounds from the
underlying services (be it mpd or some accessibility layer) should be
user choice, not forced upon them.
Yes, sure. And with pulse, that's trivial: *If* such a daemon really is
running and disturbing, it's easy to silence via pavucontrol.
mpd as a daemon shouldn't be forced upon any user
Please check the scenario I outlined again (copied again below).
That was a real case, of a friend who dropped pulseaudio, because that
wasn't workable.
I have a similar setup, but no problem, because I have a dedicated HTPC
machine that is always running, and always with the same user account.
More realistic is: An average couple, he is a unix geek. He has a
notebook and a tablet. The notebook is connected to speakers, running
mpd for music. Tablet is running mpdroid and controls the mpd.
The notebook has 2 users (but never at the same time), so the geek
doesn't want to log in to any particular account just to listen
music, but wants mpd to work irregardless of the logged-in user.
There's no conflict, because if the music disturbs her, she'll just
turn around and tell him to stop. Which, I think, will be true for
almost all cases where you have 2 humans around the same computer at
the same time.
If you don't know mpd, please check it out. The whole idea is that I can
control from several clients, but the playback is done by the server.
And it's *really* cool, esp. combined with an Android tablet.
Ben
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
