Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
On 06/27/2011 03:30 PM, David Henningsson wrote: On 2011-06-27 13:44, rosea grammostola wrote: On 06/27/2011 12:44 PM, David Henningsson wrote: On 2011-06-26 10:04, rosea grammostola wrote: "In Fedora pulseaudio is pulled in as a dependency of gnome-shell. ...and in Ubuntu it's a dependency on ubuntu-desktop, so no difference there. There might be a small difference, but it isn't the same... Gnome-shell is some kind of an application, ubuntu-desktop is an metapackage. This looks surely like a design difference to me. In practice there isn't, because should ubuntu-desktop not depend on pulseaudio, ubuntu-desktop would still depend on gnome-volume-control (or gnome-control-center) which would depend on pulseaudio. By default pulseaudio hands over control to jack via D-bus. AFAIK this works equally well in both distros. Could be, but till now Fedora seems do it always a bit better then Ubuntu in this area (maybe because the Pulseaudio and JACK dev are using Fedora?). Would it be possible for you to actually research this issue and point to the actual difference? I don't know if the difference in quality still exists, but at least in the past (pre gnome-shell / unity) there was this difference. Making pulseaudio easier to remove is not a priority, but if any volunteer wants to work with that functionality (and it doesn't end up breaking something else), I don't see why we wouldn't take such a patch. For me the priority would be rather to fix the issues people have with PulseAudio, rather than making it easier to remove. Audio drivers as well as PulseAudio have improved over the last three years it's been a part of Ubuntu, maybe it's worth another try? It's true that PulseAudio has been improved, (all though when having pulseaudio installed, the often recommended proaudio soundcards from M-audio (Delta series) doesn't work OOTB) Ok, let's take M-audio, I'm assuming you mean bug 178442. It was fixed/improved in Ubuntu 11.04, with a patch to alsa-lib. They still have non-standard mixer control names, which is a driver issue. Good to hear that there are improvements in this area finally. and they will be working further to improve the coexistence of both PulseAudio and JACK. But no matter how well PulseAudio works, there will always be people who prefer to have it not on their system. So it would be good if you could remove it easily (like is possible on Debian and Fedora atm). Sure; but for most of the those people stopping PulseAudio will be enough to keep it out of the way (in terms of CPU usage and sound card access things), and that is already possible. Again, can you please research what happens if you remove PulseAudio on Debian and Fedora, and what way resulting user experience will differ from Ubuntu? I have Debian running here. You just can totally remove and the system uses another sound system for Desktop sound (ALSA and/or KDE stuff for instance). I tried Fedora a while ago. It was pretty simple to remove Pulseaudio and to switch to ALSA (you had to add or remove a package for that iirc). Also looking at the waste of system resources Unity suffers with, it might be wiser for 'us' proaudio engineers / music producers to look for something else, Xfce maybe... Just a wild guess, but maybe Unity 2D could be sufficient for these purposes? Probably. But with Unity you keep being busy making adjustments when you want a user friendly stable system without wasting too many resources. I think Unity is a total different direction then audio engineers like to see it going I think. Regards, \r -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
On 06/27/2011 12:44 PM, David Henningsson wrote: On 2011-06-26 10:04, rosea grammostola wrote: "In Fedora pulseaudio is pulled in as a dependency of gnome-shell. ...and in Ubuntu it's a dependency on ubuntu-desktop, so no difference there. There might be a small difference, but it isn't the same... Gnome-shell is some kind of an application, ubuntu-desktop is an metapackage. This looks surely like a design difference to me. By default pulseaudio hands over control to jack via D-bus. AFAIK this works equally well in both distros. Could be, but till now Fedora seems do it always a bit better then Ubuntu in this area (maybe because the Pulseaudio and JACK dev are using Fedora?). Making pulseaudio easier to remove is not a priority, but if any volunteer wants to work with that functionality (and it doesn't end up breaking something else), I don't see why we wouldn't take such a patch. For me the priority would be rather to fix the issues people have with PulseAudio, rather than making it easier to remove. Audio drivers as well as PulseAudio have improved over the last three years it's been a part of Ubuntu, maybe it's worth another try? It's true that PulseAudio has been improved, (all though when having pulseaudio installed, the often recommended proaudio soundcards from M-audio (Delta series) doesn't work OOTB) and they will be working further to improve the coexistence of both PulseAudio and JACK. But no matter how well PulseAudio works, there will always be people who prefer to have it not on their system. So it would be good if you could remove it easily (like is possible on Debian and Fedora atm). Gnome-shell and Unity seems to make the situation a bit different again. It looks like the situation is going to be worse. Now (pre Gnome-shell / Unity) Ubuntu is the only distro where you can't remove PulseAudio, but if PulseAudio is a dependency of Gnome-shell it won't be able to remove it on the other distro if I see it right. Also looking at the waste of system resources Unity suffers with, it might be wiser for 'us' proaudio engineers / music producers to look for something else, Xfce maybe... Sad, cause Gnome2 (especially in Debian) is very good atm, delivering a good balance between a nice good looking Desktop and reasonable use of system resources (and on Debian the possibility to remove components like PulseAudio). Ubuntu has to be careful not going to be the next Windows imho. Of course the base system is a lot different, but it doesn't looks to me that Ubuntu is capable atm of implementing new Desktop goodies in a clean and efficient way. Unity seems to offer us heavy system loads and a cluttered system where it is getting harder and harder to remove components from ubuntu-desktop. I have nothing against 'Desktop innovation' and I don't want to be conservative here, but alas it shouldn't be a degeneration when it comes to system load and cleanness imho. So my opinion is that it should be possible to remove components as much as possible from the ubuntu-desktop. If you could improve this by making it able to remove PulseAudio from ubuntu-desktop (also with Unity), that would be a good thing. Thanks in advance, \r -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
On 06/25/2011 01:40 PM, rosea grammostola wrote: On 06/25/2011 01:04 PM, rosea grammostola wrote: On 06/25/2011 12:45 PM, Tony Atkinson wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:21 +0200, rosea.grammostola wrote: Ah I like constructive replies. I should provide you a little background info maybe. Since years 64Studio is the most known company when it comes to the delivering of (community) distros (and OEM products) optimized for multimedia and especially proaudio. First they based there (OEM) products on Debian. But because Ubuntu had those LTS releases, they switched to Ubuntu instead. They offered the community the 64studio distro, but also made products like Indamixx http://www.indamixx.com/ But because of problems with Ubuntu they got back to Debian recently, for building the OpenDAW distro, an optimized community distro for music production and sound engineering. One of the reasons for this recent change was the fact that you can't cleanly remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu. Not only 64Studio suffers from this, but also more small projects like Tango Studio. I don't really understand this need to "remove pulseaudio" Why remove it? I'm by no means an expert, but have dabbled with the various audio production tailored distros, and it seems very possible to use such systems with Jack as a primary sound server and Pulse feeding into Jack when needed KXStudio (which I've used a fair bit), uses Jack2 for it's main sound server for the low latency audio apps, and provides Pulseaudio for other "traditional desktop" apps You can simply use the Jack2 GUI tools to "wire up" the different apps. Prof. audio apps going directly to Jack2 others (Adobe Flash, for example) going through pulseaudio Pulseaudio feeding into Jack2 I think your issues stem from this (possibly misguided, but as I said, I'm no expert) belief that you need to remove pulseaudio I know KXStudio and I wouldn't call it an ideal system for professional music production / audio engineering (which doesn't say I couldn't serve some people for that). I don't think the discussion is whether or not is it possible to disable pulseaudio. There are many ways to handle this situation, disabling, routing pulse into JACK etc.. But the question is whether these ways serve experienced / professional music producers / audio engineers in an optimal way. You have to accept from me that a group of audio engineers wants to remove pulseaudio totally, as a matter of fact. The discussion should be a different one in my opinion. Why is it possible on Fedora and Debian etc. to remove Pulseaudio and why not on Ubuntu. How could we fix this. Maybe also good to explore how Debian and Fedora handles Pulseaudio with the new Gnome-shell... and how Ubuntu with Unity does it. \r "In Fedora pulseaudio is pulled in as a dependency of gnome-shell. By default pulseaudio hands over control to jack via D-bus. Alternatively you can sill disable pulseaudio by removing alsa-plugins-pulseaudio" ... Hmm Regards, \r -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
On 06/25/2011 01:04 PM, rosea grammostola wrote: On 06/25/2011 12:45 PM, Tony Atkinson wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:21 +0200, rosea.grammostola wrote: Ah I like constructive replies. I should provide you a little background info maybe. Since years 64Studio is the most known company when it comes to the delivering of (community) distros (and OEM products) optimized for multimedia and especially proaudio. First they based there (OEM) products on Debian. But because Ubuntu had those LTS releases, they switched to Ubuntu instead. They offered the community the 64studio distro, but also made products like Indamixx http://www.indamixx.com/ But because of problems with Ubuntu they got back to Debian recently, for building the OpenDAW distro, an optimized community distro for music production and sound engineering. One of the reasons for this recent change was the fact that you can't cleanly remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu. Not only 64Studio suffers from this, but also more small projects like Tango Studio. I don't really understand this need to "remove pulseaudio" Why remove it? I'm by no means an expert, but have dabbled with the various audio production tailored distros, and it seems very possible to use such systems with Jack as a primary sound server and Pulse feeding into Jack when needed KXStudio (which I've used a fair bit), uses Jack2 for it's main sound server for the low latency audio apps, and provides Pulseaudio for other "traditional desktop" apps You can simply use the Jack2 GUI tools to "wire up" the different apps. Prof. audio apps going directly to Jack2 others (Adobe Flash, for example) going through pulseaudio Pulseaudio feeding into Jack2 I think your issues stem from this (possibly misguided, but as I said, I'm no expert) belief that you need to remove pulseaudio I know KXStudio and I wouldn't call it an ideal system for professional music production / audio engineering (which doesn't say I couldn't serve some people for that). I don't think the discussion is whether or not is it possible to disable pulseaudio. There are many ways to handle this situation, disabling, routing pulse into JACK etc.. But the question is whether these ways serve experienced / professional music producers / audio engineers in an optimal way. You have to accept from me that a group of audio engineers wants to remove pulseaudio totally, as a matter of fact. The discussion should be a different one in my opinion. Why is it possible on Fedora and Debian etc. to remove Pulseaudio and why not on Ubuntu. How could we fix this. Maybe also good to explore how Debian and Fedora handles Pulseaudio with the new Gnome-shell... and how Ubuntu with Unity does it. \r -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
On 06/25/2011 12:45 PM, Tony Atkinson wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:21 +0200, rosea.grammostola wrote: Ah I like constructive replies. I should provide you a little background info maybe. Since years 64Studio is the most known company when it comes to the delivering of (community) distros (and OEM products) optimized for multimedia and especially proaudio. First they based there (OEM) products on Debian. But because Ubuntu had those LTS releases, they switched to Ubuntu instead. They offered the community the 64studio distro, but also made products like Indamixx http://www.indamixx.com/ But because of problems with Ubuntu they got back to Debian recently, for building the OpenDAW distro, an optimized community distro for music production and sound engineering. One of the reasons for this recent change was the fact that you can't cleanly remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu. Not only 64Studio suffers from this, but also more small projects like Tango Studio. I don't really understand this need to "remove pulseaudio" Why remove it? I'm by no means an expert, but have dabbled with the various audio production tailored distros, and it seems very possible to use such systems with Jack as a primary sound server and Pulse feeding into Jack when needed KXStudio (which I've used a fair bit), uses Jack2 for it's main sound server for the low latency audio apps, and provides Pulseaudio for other "traditional desktop" apps You can simply use the Jack2 GUI tools to "wire up" the different apps. Prof. audio apps going directly to Jack2 others (Adobe Flash, for example) going through pulseaudio Pulseaudio feeding into Jack2 I think your issues stem from this (possibly misguided, but as I said, I'm no expert) belief that you need to remove pulseaudio I know KXStudio and I wouldn't call it an ideal system for professional music production / audio engineering (which doesn't say I couldn't serve some people for that). I don't think the discussion is whether or not is it possible to disable pulseaudio. There are many ways to handle this situation, disabling, routing pulse into JACK etc.. But the question is whether these ways serve experienced / professional music producers / audio engineers in an optimal way. You have to accept from me that a group of audio engineers wants to remove pulseaudio totally, as a matter of fact. The discussion should be a different one in my opinion. Why is it possible on Fedora and Debian etc. to remove Pulseaudio and why not on Ubuntu. How could we fix this. Best regards, \r -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
