pulseaudio no audio
logged in as me on the desktop I can play audio no problems. When I run a program as root with su (so as that user) - but run it as a another user (me) I get no audio su myuser -c "export DISPLAY=:0.0; totem movie.mov" No sound... How can I get sound this way ? Thanks, Jerry -- 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
pulseaudio overwrites correct channel mapping provided by alsa
Hello, I already wrote to the pulseaudio and the alsa mailinglists but specifically at pulseaudio the reaction is sparse. I know that they are somewhat negative about Ubuntu, and so I thought that I should better try it here. Recon that "pactl list sinks" shows correct mapping while "pactl stat" does not. And the wrong mapping is in use. I also can't control the LFE in pavucontrol (no such ruler)... Here's the link to the discussion and the output files in the appendix: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2016-March/025866.html - Dennis Heuer e...@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de -- 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] Enable support for libsoxr
On Monday, 25 April 2016 19:29:22 MSK Luke Yelavich wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:38:59PM CEST, Robie Basak wrote: > > You can certainly track this in a bug, yes. > > There is already a bug for this, can't find it right now, but will reply > back when I have found it. I couldn't find the bug either, only a question: https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pulseaudio/+question/ 289537 Anyway, I created a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/1574746 Let me know if it's a duplicate. -- 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] Enable support for libsoxr
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016. 16:38:59 MSK Robie Basak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:22:33PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:16:46 +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote: > > >Should I create a bug report asking for this feature? > > > > I'm not a developer/maintainer, but I'm quite sure that you need to do > > this. > > You can certainly track this in a bug, yes. Another thing you'll need to > address though is that libsoxr0 (and libsoxr-lsr0 if that's relevant) libsoxr-lsr0 is not needed in run time, the dependency is on libsoxr0 only. But you do need libsoxr-dev to build pulseaudio and it depends on both libsoxr0 and libsoxr-lsr0. > Perhaps pulseaudio is suitably pluggable so users could opt into soxr at > runtime? Unfortunately, no. Resamplers are configured at build time and cannot be plugged in at run time. > Or else, soxr would need to enter main, so it is relevant to > most users? I think this would be the solution. -- 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] Enable support for libsoxr
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:38:59PM CEST, Robie Basak wrote: > You can certainly track this in a bug, yes. Another thing you'll need to > address though is that libsoxr0 (and libsoxr-lsr0 if that's relevant) > are in universe, but pulseaudio is in main. So there's a question about > security support for pulseaudio with respect to libsoxr, for example. > Ubuntu doesn't allow packages in main to depend on packages in universe. There is already a bug for this, can't find it right now, but will reply back when I have found it. > Perhaps pulseaudio is suitably pluggable so users could opt into soxr at > runtime? Or else, soxr would need to enter main, so it is relevant to > most users? The latter I think. PulseAudio's resampler support has to be built into the main binary. Luke -- 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] Enable support for libsoxr
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:22:33PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:16:46 +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote: > >Should I create a bug report asking for this feature? > > I'm not a developer/maintainer, but I'm quite sure that you need to do > this. You can certainly track this in a bug, yes. Another thing you'll need to address though is that libsoxr0 (and libsoxr-lsr0 if that's relevant) are in universe, but pulseaudio is in main. So there's a question about security support for pulseaudio with respect to libsoxr, for example. Ubuntu doesn't allow packages in main to depend on packages in universe. Perhaps pulseaudio is suitably pluggable so users could opt into soxr at runtime? Or else, soxr would need to enter main, so it is relevant to most users? HTH, Robie -- 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] Enable support for libsoxr
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:16:46 +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote: >Should I create a bug report asking for this feature? I'm not a developer/maintainer, but I'm quite sure that you need to do this. -- 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
[pulseaudio] Enable support for libsoxr
Hi,
I'd like to ask to enable support for libsoxr-based resamplers in the official
Ubuntu
packages for pulseaudio. The upstream already supports libsoxr and
automatically detects its availability, so the only change really needed is to
add
the build dependency to debian/control.
The resamplers based in libsoxr offer better quality and better performace
while
introducing more delay compared to the speex resamplers that are used by
default. The resamplers are documented in the man pages of pulseaudio in
Ubuntu 16.04 but unfortunately are not enabled at build time ('pulseaudio
--dump-
resample-methods' doesn't list them). I've built local packages with libsoxr
and
verified that the resampler works as expected.
I'm new to this list, so I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Should I create
a
bug report asking for this feature?
Thanks.
--
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
Fwd: Sound not working on 15.04 if Pulseaudio is fully localised (affects: el, it, pl, pt_BR, sk, sv, tr, uk, more)
This post did not make it yet to ubuntu-devel (because moderated), so I
am sending to ubuntu-devel-discuss.
It's a critical issue on Pulseaudio that breaks sound on 15.04 for those
that use a localised desktop.
At least el, it, pl, pt_BR, sk, sv, tr and uk are affected.
Simos
-- Forwarded message --
From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:39 PM
Subject: Sound not working on 15.04 if Pulseaudio is fully localised
(affects: el, it, pl, pt_BR, sk, sv, tr, uk, more)
To: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com, Ubuntu Translators
ubuntu-translat...@lists.ubuntu.com, Ubuntu-gr ubuntu...@lists.ubuntu.com
Hi All,
tldr: a function in Pulseaudio returns the strings yes or no. Last
year, those strings were made localizable and some translators started
translating them. However, apart from log messages, that function is used
to construct parameters for module loading. Thus, those that translated the
innocuous yes/no strings, do not get sound on their systems because the
essential PA modules cannot get loaded.
A member of Ubuntu Greece noticed that audio did not work after recent
updates in 15.04,
http://forum.ubuntu-gr.org/viewtopic.php?p=326944#p326944
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/1445358
The relevant message in /var/log/syslog was:
Apr 20 14:03:45 user-laptop pulseaudio[1661]: [pulseaudio] module.c: Failed
to load module module-alsa-card (argument: device_id=0
name=pci-_00_1b.0 card_name=alsa_card.pci-_00_1b.0
namereg_fail=false tsched=ναι fixed_latency_range=όχι ignore_dB=όχι
deferred_volume=ναι use_ucm=ναι
card_properties=module-udev-detect.discovered=1): initialization failed.
What is says here is that insmod (or similar) was called with parameters
like tsched=ναι, and failed.
git blame says:
d806b197 src/pulsecore/core-util.h (poljar (Damir Jelić) 2013-06-27
19:28:09 +0200 92) static inline const char *pa_yes_no(bool b) {
cd13fb36 src/pulsecore/core-util.h (Tanu Kaskinen2014-03-24
09:17:53 +0200 93) return b ? _(yes) : _(no);
which means that about a year ago a change was made to make yes/no
localisable.
Among the available quick fixes, one is to make pa_yes_no() non-localisable
as before:
diff --git a/src/pulsecore/core-util.h b/src/pulsecore/core-util.h
index dcdc40e..e6be901 100644
--- a/src/pulsecore/core-util.h
+++ b/src/pulsecore/core-util.h
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ int pa_parse_boolean(const char *s) PA_GCC_PURE;
int pa_parse_volume(const char *s, pa_volume_t *volume);
static inline const char *pa_yes_no(bool b) {
-return b ? _(yes) : _(no);
+return b ? yes : no;
}
static inline const char *pa_strnull(const char *x) {
Simos
--
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
PulseAudio
2014-03-03 PulseAudio 5.0 has been released http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio -- 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
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 03:05:57AM AEST, Nomen Nescio wrote: 2014-03-03 PulseAudio 5.0 has been released http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio This is known, however we have some very tight integration with PulseAudio, both for the Desktop and the phone, and updating all the integrated components in lockstep takes time. Chances are vivid will have PulseAudio 5.0 or even 6.0, but I cannot promise anything at this stage. Luke -- 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
I appreciate you work over the years making pulseaudio not a piece of shit. Poettering is like a leaf blowing in the wind with an attention span measured in dog years. For my main systems I use pure alsa. Everything needed can and is done through it and it's config files (yes they're complex, but that's the workflow I prefer on systems I want to have tight control over). When I need to record alsa is where it is at. It is easy to use alsa config to combine multiple sound cards into one many channel virtual sound card and record (conncurrently multitrack) using that. (Though I prefer to use one of the real non-computer multitrack recording devices) Pulseaudio, well it's fine on fire-and-forget systems I just install to be non-productive desktops. It has pauvcontrol, an easy gui for when I don't want to be bothered. That's its value. Alsa if better for everything else. Anyway, thanks for fixing what broke linux audio forever. I'm sure that was a long hard and thankless job. Someone made a mess, was incompetent, and you said finally he's gone not to fix this shit and make it work like it promised to. Thanks for that. (Note: as I said before, on important machines I don't run pulse audio or other always-on daemons: the kernel is a security nightmare as is, don't need more of the same type of complex code always running on security-neccesary systems.) Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 9:41 PM From: Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: PulseAudio On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 03:05:57AM AEST, Nomen Nescio wrote: 2014-03-03 PulseAudio 5.0 has been released http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio This is known, however we have some very tight integration with PulseAudio, both for the Desktop and the phone, and updating all the integrated components in lockstep takes time. Chances are vivid will have PulseAudio 5.0 or even 6.0, but I cannot promise anything at this stage. Luke -- 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 -- 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 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? 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. 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? 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? -- David Henningsson http://launchpad.net/~diwic -- 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 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 06/25/2011 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 ...
Hi, On 06/24/2011 07:08 PM, David Henningsson wrote: On 2011-06-24 13:26, rosea.grammostola wrote: On 06/24/2011 01:08 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote: Hi, A group of (professional) Linuxaudio users prefer to have a system without Pulseaudio. How nice Pulseaudio can be for 'consumer audio', it can be a pain on a professional audio system. Whenever you have such pains, please file a bug for it, preferrable with a very concrete example. While I might not have time to fix everything, I do want to work for making Pulseaudio less painful to use, in use cases including professional audio systems. 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. These issues didn't give Ubuntu also (a bit of) a bad name in the Linuxaudio.org community. It's often advised on the LAU mailinglist, not to use Ubuntu, but pick Fedora, Arch Linux or Debian instead, which could be avoided imo. Now in some replies I read, we don't make Ubuntu for this group of users, so we don't care. That would be a strange attitude imho: 1) Fedora, OpenSuse and Debian etc. aren't building their distro especially for this group. 2) Why make it more troublesome for a group of users when it is not needed and other distros are showing it can be done without hurting the usability of the Desktop? 3) Shouldn't components in the Desktop be able to be removed as much as possible? Just as a matter of Unix / Linux principle or doing things right? 4) Maybe it's not your focus group of users and you don't care, but you probably don't have an idea about how many people in the Ubuntu community are working very hard to make Ubuntu good for music (home)recording, via bugreports, package building, PPAs, Ubuntu Studio, documentation etc. That's why some people prefer to stick with just ALSA and JACK. On most systems this is not a problem at all, like Fedora and even on Debian, but on Ubuntu it is. This raises the question why ubuntu-desktop has Pulseaudio integrated in such a way that almost the whole desktop system seems to depend on it. There isn't a good way to remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu! This is very ugly and not a good way to handle things in the Linux world. As Daniel said, GNOME upstream has integrated Pulseaudio heavily. You might have more success trying another variant (e g xubuntu to see if removing Pulseaudio is easier there, or perhaps not even present, I don't remember). Fedora uses GNOME, Arch Linux uses GNOME, OpenSuse uses GNOME, Debian uses GNOME etc, but it is still good possible to remove Pulseaudio. Apparently those developer teams are seeing an advantage of the ability to remove Pulseaudio. And I think, even if there was not a obvious reason why people should want that, that is a general good and clean way to handle things in the world of Linux Desktop. Why? If you can remove pulseaudio easily on Debian, why is it so freaking hard on Ubuntu? What is the best place to report this major bug? If you just want to stop Pulseaudio from running, that's simple: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Audio/StopPulseaudio Of course some found a way to stop or disable Pulseaudio and for some it even works, but it's far from ideal and far more difficult (especially for newbies) than on other distros and as it should be. The guide you're pointing to starts with a warning for example: Stopping PulseAudio is not recommended unless you know what you're doing. For example, your volume control application might stop working, and you can probably only have output from one application at a time. Professional audio engineers and distro builders for proaudio optimized distros don't want to have it installed and don't want to have it running on the background. They want to be able to remove it (and the ability on Linux to remove and customize parts is one of the reasons why Linux is superior to Windows for proaudio productions and engineering). This is a section from FAQ of the website of JACK (system for handling real-time, low latency audio): The most experienced and demanding users of JACK do not attempt to link PulseAudio and JACK. Many of them will not run PulseAudio at all, having either never
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
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 -- Tony Atkinson Email: tatkinson...@googlemail.com PGP: F2B9184B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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 ...
Hi, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:21 AM, rosea.grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Fedora, OpenSuse and Debian etc. aren't building their distro especially for this group. Not being involved with Fedora or openSUSE closely, I can't comment on them, but Debian doesn't ship a desktop as tightly integrated with PulseAudio because the objective of offering a streamlined desktop environment based on GNOME isn't the top priority. 2) Why make it more troublesome for a group of users when it is not needed and other distros are showing it can be done without hurting the usability of the Desktop? There has never been an intentional effort in Ubuntu to sabotage the removal of pulse, rather there were no resources to better integrate its alternatives (be they a complete removal of pulse or a drop-in replacement, which to this day, still doesn't exist). 3) Shouldn't components in the Desktop be able to be removed as much as possible? Just as a matter of Unix / Linux principle or doing things right? As a matter of principle, this approach is ideal. Pragmatically it's not straightforward at all. Consider the case of removing ALSA and replacing it with OSSv4: it's not for the faint-of-heart and requires a tremendous amount of corner-case awareness not to let certain applications fall through the cracks. Or if you'd rather look higher in the software stack, consider the case of replacing Evolution with another calendar+email app that retains indicator functionality. Doing things right /could/ imply providing full functionality or being a drop-in replacement, but those approaches might not mesh with the rest of the environment, and then you're faced with changing the entire environment. 4) Maybe it's not your focus group of users and you don't care, but you probably don't have an idea about how many people in the Ubuntu community are working very hard to make Ubuntu good for music (home)recording, via bugreports, package building, PPAs, Ubuntu Studio, documentation etc. No, you're right in that I don't have an idea about how many people in the community are working on improving the distribution, but I don't believe that is the objective here, which is to contribute those fixes back to the appropriate level. Things that improve pulse as a whole go to upstream pulse; things that improve the base packaging go to Debian; things that improve the integration into Ubuntu go to Ubuntu. The idea is not to strike Ubuntu as a choice but to realize that this distribution may not be the ideal choice. As you allude to later, it's certainly possible to make Ubuntu do things, but the distribution itself fits on one 700 MB CD image, and in those constraints we must consider the likely computing needs of an audience. That said, it's possible to create metapackages that contain information about conflicting with other packages or providing certain functionality (I'm touching a bit on the Debian packaging terminology), but to create a streamlined solution like (the original) 64Studio really requires things like a realtime kernel, the assortment of JACK/2-based applications, and so on. That's actually the intent of the Ubuntu Studio derivative. Fedora uses GNOME, Arch Linux uses GNOME, OpenSuse uses GNOME, Debian uses GNOME etc, but it is still good possible to remove Pulseaudio. Apparently those developer teams are seeing an advantage of the ability to remove Pulseaudio. And I think, even if there was not a obvious reason why people should want that, that is a general good and clean way to handle things in the world of Linux Desktop. I don't think those developers necessarily see an overt advantage of removing pulse. As far as I know, none of them ship indicators in their default environments, and indicator-sound is a significant part of the default Ubuntu experience. Arguably indicator-sound could be extended to work directly with the ALSA hw ctl layer, and if you know people who are willing to prioritize that use case, I'm sure Connor C would be happy to discuss the merits and drawbacks of said approach and move forward. The fact is that a group of users wants to be able to remove Pulseaudio. The question is why this is possible on other GNOME distros but not on Ubuntu? Is there a way to make this possible on Ubuntu also? Are you willing to make this possible? I presume you're asking whether it's possible to integrate methods to make it feasible with one click or something close to it, and if so, yes, there are people willing to work on, but we need those people to step up and act more visibly with the Ubuntu development team. The ubuntu-audio-dev team on Launchpad is a good place to begin detailed discussions. Cheers, -Dan -- 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
Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
Hi, A group of (professional) Linuxaudio users prefer to have a system without Pulseaudio. How nice Pulseaudio can be for 'consumer audio', it can be a pain on a professional audio system. That's why some people prefer to stick with just ALSA and JACK. On most systems this is not a problem at all, like Fedora and even on Debian, but on Ubuntu it is. This raises the question why ubuntu-desktop has Pulseaudio integrated in such a way that almost the whole desktop system seems to depend on it. There isn't a good way to remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu! This is very ugly and not a good way to handle things in the Linux world. Why? If you can remove pulseaudio easily on Debian, why is it so freaking hard on Ubuntu? What is the best place to report this major bug? 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 06/24/2011 01:08 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote: Hi, A group of (professional) Linuxaudio users prefer to have a system without Pulseaudio. How nice Pulseaudio can be for 'consumer audio', it can be a pain on a professional audio system. That's why some people prefer to stick with just ALSA and JACK. On most systems this is not a problem at all, like Fedora and even on Debian, but on Ubuntu it is. This raises the question why ubuntu-desktop has Pulseaudio integrated in such a way that almost the whole desktop system seems to depend on it. There isn't a good way to remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu! This is very ugly and not a good way to handle things in the Linux world. Why? If you can remove pulseaudio easily on Debian, why is it so freaking hard on Ubuntu? What is the best place to report this major bug? Thanks in advance, \r Ah it looks I am not the only one who really is getting sick of this! Since the introduction of Pulseaudio in Ubuntu you guys (sound / desktop related devs) got plenty of feedback from the community, but you are doing still the worst job in the Linux world, even while Debian provides you with a good example! The PA main developer himself curses Ubuntu (ok.. it has been a while ..) Ar!!! http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html \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 ...
Hi, On Jun 24, 2011 7:10 AM, rosea.grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, A group of (professional) Linuxaudio users prefer to have a system without Pulseaudio. How nice Pulseaudio can be for 'consumer audio', it can be a pain on a professional audio system. That's why some people prefer to stick with just ALSA and JACK. On most systems this is not a problem at all, like Fedora and even on Debian, but on Ubuntu it is. Perhaps Ubuntu does not best serve this audience? A derivative like Ubuntu Studio may be more conducive (or perhaps a Debian blend or derivative). Please keep in mind that Debian and Ubuntu don't target the same default desktop users, thus we don't make the same audio stack decisions for Debian as we do for Ubuntu (several of us are quite involved in both). This raises the question why ubuntu-desktop has Pulseaudio integrated in such a way that almost the whole desktop system seems to depend on it. There isn't a good way to remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu! This is very ugly and not a good way to handle things in the Linux world. For GNOME, it's an upstream decision that makes sense for us as a downstream. Every so often a thread resurfaces with sentiments similar to yours. I recommend that you check the list archives from October 2009, where I have answered the question already. Why? If you can remove pulseaudio easily on Debian, why is it so freaking hard on Ubuntu? What is the best place to report this major bug? See above; the two distributions target different desktop users NY default. Cheers, -Dan -- 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 2011-06-24 13:26, rosea.grammostola wrote: On 06/24/2011 01:08 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote: Hi, A group of (professional) Linuxaudio users prefer to have a system without Pulseaudio. How nice Pulseaudio can be for 'consumer audio', it can be a pain on a professional audio system. Whenever you have such pains, please file a bug for it, preferrable with a very concrete example. While I might not have time to fix everything, I do want to work for making Pulseaudio less painful to use, in use cases including professional audio systems. That's why some people prefer to stick with just ALSA and JACK. On most systems this is not a problem at all, like Fedora and even on Debian, but on Ubuntu it is. This raises the question why ubuntu-desktop has Pulseaudio integrated in such a way that almost the whole desktop system seems to depend on it. There isn't a good way to remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu! This is very ugly and not a good way to handle things in the Linux world. As Daniel said, GNOME upstream has integrated Pulseaudio heavily. You might have more success trying another variant (e g xubuntu to see if removing Pulseaudio is easier there, or perhaps not even present, I don't remember). Why? If you can remove pulseaudio easily on Debian, why is it so freaking hard on Ubuntu? What is the best place to report this major bug? If you just want to stop Pulseaudio from running, that's simple: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Audio/StopPulseaudio If that gives worse user experience, compared to removing Pulseaudio in Debian, let me know. Ah it looks I am not the only one who really is getting sick of this! Since the introduction of Pulseaudio in Ubuntu you guys (sound / desktop related devs) got plenty of feedback from the community, but you are doing still the worst job in the Linux world, even while Debian provides you with a good example! The PA main developer himself curses Ubuntu (ok.. it has been a while ..) Ar!!! http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html That particular complaint has since long been sorted out, except possibly for flat volumes, which is still turned off. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic -- 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 ...
I can only speak for myself as I am not a Ubuntu Developer by any means. But let me point out that Ubuntu is not Debian and Debian is not Ubuntu. If you're happy with the way Debian handles Pulseaudio, then use Debian instead. And besides, there's nothing stopping you from using ALSA, OSS, JACK or whatever you like with Ubuntu. You don't have to remove Pulse just to use a different sound architecture. Cheers Chris Jones -- 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: Re: KDE PulseAudio Integration
I learned about the integration of PulseAudio into Mandriva (implemented as in Fedora) All you need to do here - http://pulseaudio.org/wiki/KDE -- 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
KDE PulseAudio Integration
PulseAudio integration in KDE's Phonon and KMix. as in Fedora 13. -- 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: KDE PulseAudio Integration
wizard160...@mail.ru wrote: PulseAudio integration in KDE's Phonon and KMix. as in Fedora 13. For Maverick, Kubuntu is planning to ship with PulseAudio integration. We mostly planned based on Mandriva since that's where most of the Kmix integration work was done. What does Fedora 13 have that's different? Scott K -- 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: Re: KDE PulseAudio Integration
I do not know how this is implemented in Mandriva ) In Fedora 13: The volume is regulated through KMix (one controller), the number of channels never adjusted, but the sound goes to all speakers (5.1). -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, I.E.G. kopci...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry for the rambling , non technical dissertation but I felt we the users(if I dare speak for more than myself) needed to be heard . For a long time I have felt that there is an artificial disconnect between users and developers. Since when are developers not users? Of course people want things to Just Work and will choose the path of least resistance, but it's worth pointing out that in the case of Linux audio the paths are neither straight nor understandable. In the case of stuttering audio on modern laptops and desktops, a fix was committed upstream last Tuesday. It may be integrated into Lucid's kernel after sufficient testing. Certainly it will land for Maverick. The best path forward is to file a bug against the alsa-driver source package in Launchpad so that we have your specific hardware information to effect workarounds and/or fixes. Best, -Dan -- 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
Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
By introduction I'm a hack of a user and not all that aware of the ins and outs of posting to this list let alone the development , configuration , and liabilities of PulseAudio . None of that is the point of my attempting to post . (we'll see if this works ) . I have gone out of my way to search for methods to remove and or disable PluseAudio . My first attempt removed the entire Gnome desktop through my own inattention. You may have seen like cases where packages to be removed in synaptic includes the gnome desktop and dummies like me click through . Oh well lesson learned . Subsequent efforts to disable and or remove PulseAudio have been more successful and far less traumatic because I am able to RTFM and learn from mistakes . I however am something more than a casual plug and play user . I am competent if not occasionally dangerous at the command line . I have skills acquired in the early days of *BSD and Solaris . I am not afraid to tinker . I am stating this history to make the point that for a common user that barely knows what a bug report is let alone files one .. Is a plug and play(pray) new Ubuntu user as an alternative to M$ and just wants it to work is capable of understanding the GUI and using software sources and synaptic as well as the update manager and can regularly tie their own shoes with out undo help . Gentlemen and Ladies I have not had any success in total or in part with PulseAudio . I have had a single trip to youtube for instance inactivate all audio on my system(s) . I have had VLC not only fail to produce any audio but seg_fault . I have experienced the aforementioned halting stutter and latency in web stream , VLC , MoviePlayer and asterisk based softphones . Suffice to say I didn't bother fixing or configuring it I just found the least path of resistance to audio and deleted , disabled or otherwise worked around it . I still to this moment as a step in installation of even, Lucid stop just after all updates are installed and find some way to eradicate PulseAudio. I just thought a response from the every day user (since 6.04) that has no political nor development agenda might have some small use . If it works I use it . If it doesn't I google it . If google turns up dissension and wildly conflicting oping as to the cause of the malfunction I punt on third down and in this case revert to ALSA which I have had success with . Sorry for the rambling , non technical dissertation but I felt we the users(if I dare speak for more than myself) needed to be heard . Thank You all for your time and patience ~Dennis one of these days I will have an internet connection faster than my computer -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Great can you please provide a detailed bug report that points to this actually being Pulseaudio then it can be resolved. Thank you On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 15:53 -0700, I.E.G. wrote: By introduction I'm a hack of a user and not all that aware of the ins and outs of posting to this list let alone the development , configuration , and liabilities of PulseAudio . None of that is the point of my attempting to post . (we'll see if this works ) . I have gone out of my way to search for methods to remove and or disable PluseAudio . My first attempt removed the entire Gnome desktop through my own inattention. You may have seen like cases where packages to be removed in synaptic includes the gnome desktop and dummies like me click through . Oh well lesson learned . Subsequent efforts to disable and or remove PulseAudio have been more successful and far less traumatic because I am able to RTFM and learn from mistakes . I however am something more than a casual plug and play user . I am competent if not occasionally dangerous at the command line . I have skills acquired in the early days of *BSD and Solaris . I am not afraid to tinker . I am stating this history to make the point that for a common user that barely knows what a bug report is let alone files one .. Is a plug and play(pray) new Ubuntu user as an alternative to M$ and just wants it to work is capable of understanding the GUI and using software sources and synaptic as well as the update manager and can regularly tie their own shoes with out undo help . Gentlemen and Ladies I have not had any success in total or in part with PulseAudio . I have had a single trip to youtube for instance inactivate all audio on my system(s) . I have had VLC not only fail to produce any audio but seg_fault . I have experienced the aforementioned halting stutter and latency in web stream , VLC , MoviePlayer and asterisk based softphones . Suffice to say I didn't bother fixing or configuring it I just found the least path of resistance to audio and deleted , disabled or otherwise worked around it . I still to this moment as a step in installation of even, Lucid stop just after all updates are installed and find some way to eradicate PulseAudio. I just thought a response from the every day user (since 6.04) that has no political nor development agenda might have some small use . If it works I use it . If it doesn't I google it . If google turns up dissension and wildly conflicting oping as to the cause of the malfunction I punt on third down and in this case revert to ALSA which I have had success with . Sorry for the rambling , non technical dissertation but I felt we the users(if I dare speak for more than myself) needed to be heard . Thank You all for your time and patience ~Dennis one of these days I will have an internet connection faster than my computer -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, I.E.G. kopci...@gmail.com wrote: … Gentlemen and Ladies I have not had any success in total or in part with PulseAudio . I have had a single trip to youtube for instance inactivate all audio on my system(s) . I have had VLC not only fail to produce any audio but seg_fault . I have experienced the aforementioned halting stutter and latency in web stream , VLC , MoviePlayer and asterisk based softphones . Suffice to say I didn't bother fixing or configuring it I just found the least path of resistance to audio and deleted , disabled or otherwise worked around it . I still to this moment as a step in installation of even, Lucid stop just after all updates are installed and find some way to eradicate PulseAudio. I just thought a response from the every day user (since 6.04) that has no political nor development agenda might have some small use . If it works I use it . If it doesn't I google it . If google turns up dissension and wildly conflicting oping as to the cause of the malfunction I punt on third down and in this case revert to ALSA which I have had success with . … I may be misunderstanding you here, but when was the last Ubuntu release where you gave Pulse a try before removing it? It sounds like you were very very quick to do so with Lucid. However, things have changed a lot lately (given that PulseAudio is being developed extremely actively). The software works considerably better in Lucid than it did in Karmic. Dylan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
For what it is worth add me to the list of people happy with PulseAudio. In my opinion we are better off fixing the remaining issues than ripping it out and replacing it with something else. It feels like this is a case of the few having issues and the resulting noise distracting from a real success. This is not to diminish their frustrations since those are legit but threads like this do not solve anything. On 5/12/10, Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:06:10AM CEST, Shentino wrote: Also, I question the wisdom of having audio specific bluetooth support. My hunches tell me that a proper bluetooth support layer would be better. What do you mean by proper bluetooth support layer? We already have that, and it does a good job of managing bluetooth. While it is possible to use bluetooth devices with ALSA, there is no good UI for managing this easily, and the interface itslf is clunky. PulseAudio elps a lot by talking directly to bluez, the support layer for bluetooth. It is then very easy to use bluetooth devices from a user perspective, with a good UI to manage things. Luke Ditto. PulseAudio developers and maintainers maintain (oops) that sound skipping now is almost always caused be alsa driver issues and these will be fleshed out - and I tend to agree. I used to be a big PA hater, but now it's working beautifully for all but one machine I've tried. (And bluetooth support is fantastic) Will we just stop this thread, please? Best regards, Flávio -- 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 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Darren Albers dalb...@gmail.com wrote: For what it is worth add me to the list of people happy with PulseAudio. In my opinion we are better off fixing the remaining issues than ripping it out and replacing it with something else. And on that note, I have performed a trivial update of allegro4.2. You can find the package here: https://launchpad.net/~chogydan/+archive/gnome-session/ I tested with opensonic and open-invaders. Gets the sound working. Someone should probably do a more formal update request with ubuntu/debian. Regarding this discussion, I think it would make sense that in the future when someone else complains about pulseaudio being in Ubuntu, we should ask for bug reports. Dan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:06:10AM CEST, Shentino wrote: Also, I question the wisdom of having audio specific bluetooth support. My hunches tell me that a proper bluetooth support layer would be better. What do you mean by proper bluetooth support layer? We already have that, and it does a good job of managing bluetooth. While it is possible to use bluetooth devices with ALSA, there is no good UI for managing this easily, and the interface itslf is clunky. PulseAudio elps a lot by talking directly to bluez, the support layer for bluetooth. It is then very easy to use bluetooth devices from a user perspective, with a good UI to manage things. Luke -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On 11/05/10 09:20, Luke Yelavich wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:15:30AM CEST, Chandru wrote: The default media players in Ubuntu, though quite capable do not have graphical equalizers. Rather than including an equalizer in every application, having a system wide equalizer can be very handy especially when playing online videos. I personally think that users will get confused with an EQ. If they find it, adjust something, and find sound is not as good, they will file bugs regarding sound problems that they have caused. I personally think we need to think very very carefully about how we implement EQ, and whether it is needed by the vast majority of people. Luke The solution to bugs like this is to make apport upload the equalizer settings (i think it already does with the volume settings). sam -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, sam tygier samtyg...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The solution to bugs like this is to make apport upload the equalizer settings (i think it already does with the volume settings). It uploads the *alsa* mixer perspective, which may be desynced from pulse's idea of those settings (which shouldn't be the case, but...). Best, -Dan -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On 12/05/10 10:07, Daniel Chen wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, sam tygiersamtyg...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The solution to bugs like this is to make apport upload the equalizer settings (i think it already does with the volume settings). It uploads the *alsa* mixer perspective, which may be desynced from pulse's idea of those settings (which shouldn't be the case, but...). Best, -Dan is it technically possible/easy to upload pulse's state as well? sam -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:36 AM, sam tygier samtyg...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: is it technically possible/easy to upload pulse's state as well? Sure, pacmd list-sinks. Best, -Dan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:06:10AM CEST, Shentino wrote: Also, I question the wisdom of having audio specific bluetooth support. My hunches tell me that a proper bluetooth support layer would be better. What do you mean by proper bluetooth support layer? We already have that, and it does a good job of managing bluetooth. While it is possible to use bluetooth devices with ALSA, there is no good UI for managing this easily, and the interface itslf is clunky. PulseAudio elps a lot by talking directly to bluez, the support layer for bluetooth. It is then very easy to use bluetooth devices from a user perspective, with a good UI to manage things. Luke Ditto. PulseAudio developers and maintainers maintain (oops) that sound skipping now is almost always caused be alsa driver issues and these will be fleshed out - and I tend to agree. I used to be a big PA hater, but now it's working beautifully for all but one machine I've tried. (And bluetooth support is fantastic) Will we just stop this thread, please? Best regards, Flávio -- 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
Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
The default media players in Ubuntu, though quite capable do not have graphical equalizers. Rather than including an equalizer in every application, having a system wide equalizer can be very handy especially when playing online videos. I've been using https://code.launchpad.net/~psyke83/+junk/pulseaudio-equalizer with Lucid and found it sufficiently capable. It will be really nice if this can be included in universe for Maverick and gradually made available as part of the default installation in future releases once it gets further polished with community's feedback. -- Chandra Sekar.S -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Chandru chandru...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using https://code.launchpad.net/~psyke83/+junk/pulseaudio-equalizer with Lucid and found it sufficiently capable. It will be really nice if this can be included in universe for Maverick and gradually made available as part of the default installation in future releases once it gets further polished with community's feedback. Two thoughts: This would entail switching to the master (or trunk) branch of upstream git, correct? Maverick currently tracks the stable-queue branch. Also, this should be packaged and submitted for inclusion into the Ubuntu repositories following procedure (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages). Best, -Dan -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:15:30AM CEST, Chandru wrote: The default media players in Ubuntu, though quite capable do not have graphical equalizers. Rather than including an equalizer in every application, having a system wide equalizer can be very handy especially when playing online videos. I personally think that users will get confused with an EQ. If they find it, adjust something, and find sound is not as good, they will file bugs regarding sound problems that they have caused. I personally think we need to think very very carefully about how we implement EQ, and whether it is needed by the vast majority of people. Luke -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
My suggestion was to just get the app into the official repos initially. Based on Daniel's reply I've sent a mail to the developer suggesting him to submit the application. If users find it useful they'd at least be able to install and use it easily. -- Chandra Sekar.S On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:15:30AM CEST, Chandru wrote: The default media players in Ubuntu, though quite capable do not have graphical equalizers. Rather than including an equalizer in every application, having a system wide equalizer can be very handy especially when playing online videos. I personally think that users will get confused with an EQ. If they find it, adjust something, and find sound is not as good, they will file bugs regarding sound problems that they have caused. I personally think we need to think very very carefully about how we implement EQ, and whether it is needed by the vast majority of people. Luke -- 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 -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Chandru chandru...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion was to just get the app into the official repos initially. Based on Daniel's reply I've sent a mail to the developer suggesting him to submit the application. It would be even more useful to work alongside him to get it into Maverick. Best, -Dan -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On 11 May 2010 09:20, Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:15:30AM CEST, Chandru wrote: The default media players in Ubuntu, though quite capable do not have graphical equalizers. Rather than including an equalizer in every application, having a system wide equalizer can be very handy especially when playing online videos. I personally think that users will get confused with an EQ. If they find it, adjust something, and find sound is not as good, they will file bugs regarding sound problems that they have caused. Yeah I'm Engineering Major and have no clue which slider to move to hear what i want =) But with every music player I use I've always went into the equaliser, was choosing between preset options. Finding the one I like best and always increased the pre-amplifier to get louder music. I would find it extremely useful to do that just once for all apps that produce sound. As for bugs I was annoyed that speakers on my laptop were quieter under ubuntu until I was told to use EQ to crank the speakers higher without getting distortion when the sound is maxed out. I personally think we need to think very very carefully about how we implement EQ, and whether it is needed by the vast majority of people. Why can't the EQ be inside the sound properties the one you get to from current VolumeIndicator - Preferences? That would be Hidden enough yet Findable enough =) Luke -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
Including a system-wide eq sounds great and all, but it's probably more difficult than what it initially seems. Especially considering the variety of codecs and output configs and methods that we all have running. eg. gstreamer, xine, vlc, mplayer, xmms just to name a few. So I can't see how a system-wide eq could work. I use vlc personally for both video and audio and do enjoy it's built in equalizer. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions - Photo Printing, Editing and Restorations Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On 11 May 2010 10:20, Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com wrote: I personally think that users will get confused with an EQ. If they find it, adjust something, and find sound is not as good, they will file bugs regarding sound problems that they have caused. I personally think we need to think very very carefully about how we implement EQ, and whether it is needed by the vast majority of people. I agree, and I reckon it would be the same mess if we ever allowed ever users to change the size of the desktop font, or mess up with the sound volume. Or move windows around. Oh wait... Loïc -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com wrote: Two thoughts: This would entail switching to the master (or trunk) branch of upstream git, correct? Maverick currently tracks the stable-queue branch. No, my equalizer is merely a wrapper script that takes advantage of PulseAudio's module-ladspa-sink module (which has been included by PulseAudio for quite some time, but only stable since the 0.9.19 series) with an EQ LADSPA plugin. The script works by removing/(re)inserting the aforementioned module with the equalization parameters on a running server via pacmd, and optionally saving such configuration to the users's ~/.pulse/default.pa configuration file. Although Chandru linked to the source, there are also packages available (for Lucid and Karmic) if anybody is interested. See here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1308838 Directly link to my PPA: https://launchpad.net/~psyke83/+archive/ppa It was also included in Fedora 12's repository (though I am not the maintainer). Also, this should be packaged and submitted for inclusion into the Ubuntu repositories following procedure (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages). I replied directly to Chandru on this issue without awareness of this thread, so let me now copy paste to the list (and I'd be interested to know if there's still any demand for the submission): --- Hi, Getting pulseaudio-equalizer included into Lucid would have been ideal, but due to lack of time and problems with my development machine, I didn't get to make the submission before the freeze deadline. Moving forward, I'm not so sure that the equalizer has a long future in its current incarnation; the latest PulseAudio upstream code (non-stable branch) includes a native equalizer [1] which offers better quality than what can be provided through my equalizer (which uses a LADSPA plugin). So, for Lucid+1, perhaps there is potential to take the GUI part of my pulseaudio-equalizer code and adapt it to be used by the native PulseAudio equalizer. My GUI is GTK-based, whereas the native equalizer only has a QT-based interface available (pqaeq). There's nothing wrong with QT, but GTK-based applications would be preferred for the regular Ubuntu (i.e., GNOME-based) desktop flavour. Let's wait and see what happens. Thanks, Conn [1] This branch may be obsolete now that the equalizer is included upstream by default - I haven't followed developments recently. Here it is: http://gitorious.org/pulseaudio-equalizer -- 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: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Conn O'Griofa connogri...@gmail.com wrote: [1] This branch may be obsolete now that the equalizer is included upstream by default - I haven't followed developments recently. Here it is: http://gitorious.org/pulseaudio-equalizer Right, which is now in the master trunk of upstream pulseaudio git. Best, -Dan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
I would just like to throw my two cents in and express my own disapproval of PulseAudio. It's clunky and hard to configure, and personally I think it rather tries to do too much at once, and by so doing is latent. I would not miss it if it were removed from Ubuntu in favor of something more simple. 2010/5/7 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 20:17:04 -0400 From: Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com (Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? Why on earth would I file a bug for alsa-driver when alsa is the driver that is working. Pulse is what I'm having issues with. Perhaps you misread/misunderstood my post. I had this conversation with Daniel in pvt. Well, with a somewhat different words ;-) On May 6, 2010 8:52 PM, Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com wrote: If VLC is working with the ALSA emulation, isn't it more likely a bug in the VLC plugin for PA? It is no more or less likely. For hardware bugs, you start at the bottom of the stack for debugging, not the top. The fact that early requests mode works implies that the buffering semantics are incorrect, which could be the pulse output plugin for vlc *or* the driver. Actually, it was a stupid question on my part. VLC is working fine in my desktop and notebook so, indeed, it may/must be related to the real alsa driver. Best regards, Flávio -- 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 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Also, I question the wisdom of having audio specific bluetooth support. My hunches tell me that a proper bluetooth support layer would be better. 2010/5/11 Shentino shent...@gmail.com I would just like to throw my two cents in and express my own disapproval of PulseAudio. It's clunky and hard to configure, and personally I think it rather tries to do too much at once, and by so doing is latent. I would not miss it if it were removed from Ubuntu in favor of something more simple. 2010/5/7 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 20:17:04 -0400 From: Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com (Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? Why on earth would I file a bug for alsa-driver when alsa is the driver that is working. Pulse is what I'm having issues with. Perhaps you misread/misunderstood my post. I had this conversation with Daniel in pvt. Well, with a somewhat different words ;-) On May 6, 2010 8:52 PM, Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com wrote: If VLC is working with the ALSA emulation, isn't it more likely a bug in the VLC plugin for PA? It is no more or less likely. For hardware bugs, you start at the bottom of the stack for debugging, not the top. The fact that early requests mode works implies that the buffering semantics are incorrect, which could be the pulse output plugin for vlc *or* the driver. Actually, it was a stupid question on my part. VLC is working fine in my desktop and notebook so, indeed, it may/must be related to the real alsa driver. Best regards, Flávio -- 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 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
My experiences are from Karmic not Hardy. It is pathetic that these problems were still there after a year and a half. The fact that the OpenSonic FAQs have removing PulseAudio as a recommandation (though there is an involved workaround involving editing text files if you want to keep PulseAudio) suggests that this is a wide-spread problem. It is likely faced mostly by new users, the very people who won't speak up, as most Linux developers and long time users have likely given up on running games (including emulators) on Linux. I know this is the case with several users I have spoken too. They have accepted that it just does not work, and that is sad. This is the case but only because projects choose not to upgrade to something more compatible. Many of the issues stem from poorly integrated SDL features that just make things fail, even with pasuspender. They cite the following reason that you've given: Games need lower-level access to the sound hardware then PulseAudio ever can provide. The problem is, this is just a plain lie. For all its faults, latency is * not* an issue with PulseAudio for anybody but recording studios. The proof? All the native and emulated games (and apps) that work perfectly with PulseAudio.. There are lots. Fact is, your wish won't be granted. At least not until there's something completely feature compatible with PA because Shuttleworth wants per-application volume controls on every window. You can't do that with something like OSS4, at least, not without a huge battle. At this stage, it's easier to fix the broken things than it is overhauling the entire thing. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 20:17:04 -0400 From: Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com (Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? Why on earth would I file a bug for alsa-driver when alsa is the driver that is working. Pulse is what I'm having issues with. Perhaps you misread/misunderstood my post. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 20:17:04 -0400 From: Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com (Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? Why on earth would I file a bug for alsa-driver when alsa is the driver that is working. Pulse is what I'm having issues with. Perhaps you misread/misunderstood my post. I had this conversation with Daniel in pvt. Well, with a somewhat different words ;-) On May 6, 2010 8:52 PM, Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com wrote: If VLC is working with the ALSA emulation, isn't it more likely a bug in the VLC plugin for PA? It is no more or less likely. For hardware bugs, you start at the bottom of the stack for debugging, not the top. The fact that early requests mode works implies that the buffering semantics are incorrect, which could be the pulse output plugin for vlc *or* the driver. Actually, it was a stupid question on my part. VLC is working fine in my desktop and notebook so, indeed, it may/must be related to the real alsa driver. Best regards, Flávio -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 05:54 +, Mario Vukelic wrote: Many companies are switching their internal phone systems to VoIP. The company I work for (15,000 seats, half of the users mobile with laptops) just finished this transition, and the next step will be a migration to PC-based phones for those who prefer it. Bluetooth headsets, certainly. Also, there is this little application called Skype that I hear people are using. I don't see the point of the false dichotomy either bluetooth headset support *or* proper game support, either. I do not own a traditional phone and use Skype to make all of my calls. The $3 a month plan is god send compared to traditional POTS service for a starving student. Skype will work on infinityOS and on any audio system that I propose Ubuntu should adopt. Skype works fully on the pure ALSA system employed currently by infinityOS as I use it personally. personal anecdote However, Bluetooth headsets are a giant mess. I bought a Nokia one to use with my computer and it was always a pain to get working and connected (this was on Mac OS X and Windows). I highly suggest, based on my own personal experience, that you do not deploy Bluetooth headsets at your workplace. Bluetooth is a half-baked technology that barely works when it does work. Hell, half the time your headset will randomly decide to connect to your phone instead of your computer for an arbitrary reason. /personal anecdote Bluetooth support will be in what ever audio layer infinityOS uses (or anything I support Ubuntu to use) or at the very least be on the roadmap. Game support is, however, just a plain higher priority, as it is required by home users while you can choose to use a different headset (such as USB or RF wireless) to work better on Linux (or just plain work better in general, Bluetooth is nothing but problems). Ryan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 6 May 2010 00:58:36 -0400, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it does not always work with existing code. Yes, this is true. But again, the problem is with the existing code, not PulseAudio. If we are going to simply give up whenever new code breaks existing broken code, I don't know how we are going to meet the challenge of keeping up with Windows and Mac OS X. Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. I still don't understand why you would think that OSS4 is going to be able to deliver the same functionality as PulseAudio without the bug burden. But, as others have said, feel free to try it in your own distribution. - Ben -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: Until the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested, infinityOS will continue to use pure ALSA. How will you determine that the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested? Best, -Dan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 02:27 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: Skype will work on infinityOS and on any audio system that I propose Ubuntu should adopt. Skype works fully on the pure ALSA system employed currently by infinityOS as I use it personally. I did question whether Skype will work on your distro, but intended to use it as a popular example application that many users will want a bluetooth headset for. And even if other systems are really better, it does not change the fact that many people use bluetooth. I highly suggest, based on my own personal experience, that you do not deploy Bluetooth headsets at your workplace. We are sometimes not stupid :) and of course are testing before we deploy. 150 users at the helpdesk have been using bluetooth headsets for months without encountering significant amounts of the issues you describe. Bluetooth support will be in what ever audio layer infinityOS uses (or anything I support Ubuntu to use) or at the very least be on the roadmap. Game support is, however, just a plain higher priority, as it is required by home users You are of course free to prioritize in your distro any way you want, I just don't buy that it's clear cut that games are a higher priority than simple bluetooth audio connectivity. Also games are required by *some* home users. And in fact not that many people play sophisticated PC games, believe it or not. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 22:05 +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote: I did question whether Skype will work on your distro, I did *not* question .. Sorry. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- 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: RE: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On May 6, 2010 8:11 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- 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 -- 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: RE: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
(Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? On May 6, 2010 8:11 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- 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 -- 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
Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up. I am greatly concerned that the non-functionality of PulseAudio is hampering the beginning of a commercial game industry on Linux. Developers need working APIs to make applications. They will not tolerate game development using a half-working API. I feel that there never be a wide spread game industry on Linux as long as PulseAudio is in widespread use. I have nothing against the ideals and theories behind PulseAudio. It is just their implementation does not work and it seems it will never actually work as intended. Libsydney has never come to be. It is time we look at alternatives. A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task. I have already removed PulseAudio completely from my distribution because I have found it greatly interferes with multimedia playback and gaming. I have received no complaints from my users, in fact, many of them have switched over to infinityOS specifically because I do not include PulseAudio. Let's not waste any more effort on a failure. Thanks, Ryan Oram -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Hm, i brought this up last year: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-June/008813.html After reading this post on Insane Coding http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-of-sound-in-linux-not-so-sorry.html(via Slashdot http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1937210/State-of-Sound-Development-On-Linux-Not-So-Sorry-After-All?from=rss) it seems that PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due to horrible latency and lower sound quality, and that we should work to use OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to be worth it. What do others think about this? On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 19:13, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up. I am greatly concerned that the non-functionality of PulseAudio is hampering the beginning of a commercial game industry on Linux. Developers need working APIs to make applications. They will not tolerate game development using a half-working API. I feel that there never be a wide spread game industry on Linux as long as PulseAudio is in widespread use. I have nothing against the ideals and theories behind PulseAudio. It is just their implementation does not work and it seems it will never actually work as intended. Libsydney has never come to be. It is time we look at alternatives. A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task. I have already removed PulseAudio completely from my distribution because I have found it greatly interferes with multimedia playback and gaming. I have received no complaints from my users, in fact, many of them have switched over to infinityOS specifically because I do not include PulseAudio. Let's not waste any more effort on a failure. Thanks, Ryan Oram -- 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 -- .danny ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo Every (in)decision matters. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I fail to see how diverging from upstream Gnome and switching audio systems AGAIN would solve any problems. As it is we have gained a lot from PulseAudio (eg: Bluetooth audio that we can actually expect end users to use), it is quite widely adopted and it is neatly integrated at this point. Now, granted, most things (gstreamer, canberra) are flexible and have (or could have) OSS4 support, but there is some significant energy required to swap these kinds of components. I think energy would be better spent sorting out the higher level APIs that application developers are actually meant to be using. We seem to have hundreds of these bouncing around, and they are all compatible with a different subset of audio frameworks. We can change underlying systems all we want, but those diagrams of the audio stack will still look awful because of all those libraries. You mention PulseAudio's high latency. I haven't followed this, but does anyone know what became of rtkit? Personally I've had an excellent audio experience in Lucid thus far (except for that funny issue with the balance slider and indicator-sound) and I believe rtkit has been merged into the kernel, but I could be mistaken about whether it's being used (or useful to begin with). Disclaimer: I'm also quite attached to positional event sounds :) Dylan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
How many users actually use Bluetooth headsets with their computers or mute their browsers? I feel that being able to play games without having to edit text files or install alternate packages is much important to the average user then the above features. Chances are people who want to use Bluetooth headsets and to mute browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. Thanks, Ryan Oram On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I fail to see how diverging from upstream Gnome and switching audio systems AGAIN would solve any problems. As it is we have gained a lot from PulseAudio (eg: Bluetooth audio that we can actually expect end users to use), it is quite widely adopted and it is neatly integrated at this point. Now, granted, most things (gstreamer, canberra) are flexible and have (or could have) OSS4 support, but there is some significant energy required to swap these kinds of components. I think energy would be better spent sorting out the higher level APIs that application developers are actually meant to be using. We seem to have hundreds of these bouncing around, and they are all compatible with a different subset of audio frameworks. We can change underlying systems all we want, but those diagrams of the audio stack will still look awful because of all those libraries. You mention PulseAudio's high latency. I haven't followed this, but does anyone know what became of rtkit? Personally I've had an excellent audio experience in Lucid thus far (except for that funny issue with the balance slider and indicator-sound) and I believe rtkit has been merged into the kernel, but I could be mistaken about whether it's being used (or useful to begin with). Disclaimer: I'm also quite attached to positional event sounds :) Dylan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On 6 May 2010 01:49, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: How many users actually use Bluetooth headsets with their computers or mute their browsers? This one time in bandcamp when you fool around with a cool cellphone accessories I feel that being able to play games without having to edit text files or install alternate packages is much important to the average user then the above features. Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not know how to edit *plain* text files. Chances are people who want to use Bluetooth headsets and to mute browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without editing any textfiles. I would not be able to do this without PA. Thanks, Ryan Oram On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I fail to see how diverging from upstream Gnome and switching audio systems AGAIN would solve any problems. As it is we have gained a lot from PulseAudio (eg: Bluetooth audio that we can actually expect end users to use), it is quite widely adopted and it is neatly integrated at this point. Now, granted, most things (gstreamer, canberra) are flexible and have (or could have) OSS4 support, but there is some significant energy required to swap these kinds of components. I think energy would be better spent sorting out the higher level APIs that application developers are actually meant to be using. We seem to have hundreds of these bouncing around, and they are all compatible with a different subset of audio frameworks. We can change underlying systems all we want, but those diagrams of the audio stack will still look awful because of all those libraries. You mention PulseAudio's high latency. I haven't followed this, but does anyone know what became of rtkit? Personally I've had an excellent audio experience in Lucid thus far (except for that funny issue with the balance slider and indicator-sound) and I believe rtkit has been merged into the kernel, but I could be mistaken about whether it's being used (or useful to begin with). Disclaimer: I'm also quite attached to positional event sounds :) Dylan -- 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 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not know how to edit *plain* text files. In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what people are going to be using to play games) and native games to work on Ubuntu, you have to remove PulseAudio, install aoss and, if the emulator/games uses SDL, libsdl1.2debian-oss as SDL seems to have timing problems with ALSA (especially with games made using the Allegro library/toolkit). It is broken to the point that the OpenSonic FAQ recommends that you remove PulseAudio when installing. http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#The_game_has_no_sound.21_.28Linux.29 I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without editing any textfiles. I would not be able to do this without PA. Is your average user is going to be streaming audio to his kitchen? I think Ubuntu should be focusing on getting its audio system to work out of the box for common usage situations. Playing native games and emulators is much more common usage situation then Bluetooth headsets (hell I gave mine up as it was much more of a pain on any OS then a corded/RF headset) and streaming audio to another computer. Less common situations can be addressed by FAQs and documentation. Chances are if a user wants to stream audio to his kitchen or use a bluetooth headset, he will be looking online for documentation and help anyways. A user will not expect to have to configure his audio system to play games. He will expect it to work by default. Ryan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On 6 May 2010 02:31, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not know how to edit *plain* text files. In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what what is an emulator? i play games on facebook xbox. people are going to be using to play games) and native games to work yofrankie works fine so does skype here. on Ubuntu, you have to remove PulseAudio, install aoss and, if the emulator/games uses SDL, libsdl1.2debian-oss as SDL seems to have timing problems with ALSA (especially with games made using the Allegro library/toolkit). It is broken to the point that the OpenSonic FAQ recommends that you remove PulseAudio when installing. http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#The_game_has_no_sound.21_.28Linux.29 you lost me at installing emulator i play games listen music in my kitchen. I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without editing any textfiles. I would not be able to do this without PA. Is your average user is going to be streaming audio to his kitchen? In US Canada a lot of people do. I think Ubuntu should be focusing on getting its audio system to work out of the box for common usage situations. Playing native games and emulators is much more common usage situation then Bluetooth headsets (hell I gave mine up as it was much more of a pain on any OS then a corded/RF headset) and streaming audio to another computer. We got streaming audio bluetooth audio for free. I don't see any emulators in ubuntu main so I don't understand why should it be a focus for ubuntu. As for games the default set of games more advanced like yofrankie work fine. Less common situations can be addressed by FAQs and documentation. For me emulators is a niche situation. And so is for all of my hosemates and family. Only a few of us are gamers and they use xbox. Chances are if a user wants to stream audio to his kitchen or use a bluetooth headset, he will be looking online for documentation and help anyways. On Mac Windows streaming audio and using bluetooth headsets is dead simple using manufacturer cd (which everyone installs) and using iTunes for streaming. Why should one look up documentation help on Ubuntu when it's painlessly done on a Mac? How *easy* is it to setup emulators on windows? A user will not expect to have to configure his audio system to play games. He will expect it to work by default. Default games work. You have operating system already. Work on, it make it unique, profit. Ryan -- 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 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Emulators are a subset of games. They use the same libraries and frameworks. If they do not work, games will not likely not work. Besides, do I have to configure my sound system to play a game on Windows or Mac OS X? No. Why should I have to on Linux? Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: On 6 May 2010 02:31, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not know how to edit *plain* text files. In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what what is an emulator? i play games on facebook xbox. people are going to be using to play games) and native games to work yofrankie works fine so does skype here. on Ubuntu, you have to remove PulseAudio, install aoss and, if the emulator/games uses SDL, libsdl1.2debian-oss as SDL seems to have timing problems with ALSA (especially with games made using the Allegro library/toolkit). It is broken to the point that the OpenSonic FAQ recommends that you remove PulseAudio when installing. http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#The_game_has_no_sound.21_.28Linux.29 you lost me at installing emulator i play games listen music in my kitchen. I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without editing any textfiles. I would not be able to do this without PA. Is your average user is going to be streaming audio to his kitchen? In US Canada a lot of people do. I think Ubuntu should be focusing on getting its audio system to work out of the box for common usage situations. Playing native games and emulators is much more common usage situation then Bluetooth headsets (hell I gave mine up as it was much more of a pain on any OS then a corded/RF headset) and streaming audio to another computer. We got streaming audio bluetooth audio for free. I don't see any emulators in ubuntu main so I don't understand why should it be a focus for ubuntu. As for games the default set of games more advanced like yofrankie work fine. Less common situations can be addressed by FAQs and documentation. For me emulators is a niche situation. And so is for all of my hosemates and family. Only a few of us are gamers and they use xbox. Chances are if a user wants to stream audio to his kitchen or use a bluetooth headset, he will be looking online for documentation and help anyways. On Mac Windows streaming audio and using bluetooth headsets is dead simple using manufacturer cd (which everyone installs) and using iTunes for streaming. Why should one look up documentation help on Ubuntu when it's painlessly done on a Mac? How *easy* is it to setup emulators on windows? A user will not expect to have to configure his audio system to play games. He will expect it to work by default. Default games work. You have operating system already. Work on, it make it unique, profit. Ryan -- 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 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 01:34 +0100, ubuntu-devel-discuss-request at lists.ubuntu.com wrote: Pulseaudio has become considerably better since Ubuntu 8.04. Most people's first exposure to Pulseaudio was in 8.04 and it was not a pleasant experience. My experiences are from Karmic not Hardy. It is pathetic that these problems were still there after a year and a half. The fact that the OpenSonic FAQs have removing PulseAudio as a recommandation (though there is an involved workaround involving editing text files if you want to keep PulseAudio) suggests that this is a wide-spread problem. It is likely faced mostly by new users, the very people who won't speak up, as most Linux developers and long time users have likely given up on running games (including emulators) on Linux. I know this is the case with several users I have spoken too. They have accepted that it just does not work, and that is sad. I would be happy if these issues were solved in Lucid, as I have not given Lucid extensive testing, but this is highly unlikely as these problem seem to stem from design. Games need lower-level access to the sound hardware then PulseAudio ever can provide. This is the case with many apps as PulseAudio only support 70% of ALSA functions and routines by design. The library that was supposed implement the other 30%, Libsydney, never became more than vapourware. Games are one of the core applications used by your average user. If Ubuntu and furthermore Linux is ever adopted by the masses, games would have to work out of the box as on Windows and Mac OS X. No configuration should be necessary. Games should just work and currently they do not on distributions with PulseAudio. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, 5 May 2010 21:52:25 -0400, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: Emulators are a subset of games. They use the same libraries and frameworks. If they do not work, games will not likely not work. If they do not work, it is more likely that the game is broken in its usage of the underlying hardware than PulseAudio. PulseAudio does things with audio that older (i.e. broken) applications do not expect. If there are issues, this is probably the result of applications making invalid assumptions about the nature of the underlying device (now PulseAudio). Audio has worked perfectly on all my hardware with day-to-day applications for the last several (= 2) releases. Certainly, the transition to PulseAudio was a little rough (which distributions deserve a little blame for), but almost all of the issues have since been fixed, even on broken hardware. Without PulseAudio, Ubuntu would be entirely unable to compete with Windows or OS X on the basis of its audio subsystem. Besides, do I have to configure my sound system to play a game on Windows or Mac OS X? No. No, if you have issues, bring it up with the game's/library's upstream. If your game needs to be working today, use pasuspender as a temporary workaround. But please, this discussion has been had dozens of times before in various forms; PulseAudio is here to stay for the benefit of us all. If you have issues, stop whining and help fix them. - Ben -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
I want my distribution to work out of the box with existing code. PulseAudio does not, so it will not be included. It is Ubuntu/Canonical's choice which path they wish to take. This is not the first difference between infinityOS and Ubuntu. infinityOS uses a hybrid of Gnome and Xfce. I will keep in contact with upstream. There is no hard feelings. ;P Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: I am seriously considering implementing OSS4 as an alternative to PulseAudio/ALSA in the next major version of infinityOS. I would like it if users of Ubuntu could have the same benefits in terms of functionality, but at the very least my users will have (and do have) a sound system that works out of the box for games. I have to reiterate what other people are saying. PA has been working well for me at LEAST since Karmic, if not Jaunty or before. I was able to buy World of Goo (for linux) and Portal (via Wine), and the sound worked for both of them without any configuring. Not to mention that I can chat on Skype with a bluetooth headset now. As Ben said, if you're having a problem it sounds like there's a good chance it's on the game's end. Just because one or a few games that you want aren't working right, it doesn't mean we should throw out the whole system. Jonathan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I feel I am at least somewhat qualified to speak on this subject, having been involved in the (ill?) integration of PA in Ubuntu many releases ago and for x86 driver quirking many years prior and since. Zero progress really is stunningly ill-informed. Yes, there remain problems with BIOS vendors, mainboard integrators, audio drivers, alsa-lib, PulseAudio, application integration, and so on, but to claim zero progress for any part of the audio stack is quite off the mark. The fact of the matter is that audio deficiencies in any popular Linux distribution raise polemics, none of which is truly on-mark. Perhaps I can do a better job of documenting efforts to combat deficiencies, so this thread is as good a place as any to continue. Put another way: there are plenty people who decry the sinkhole, but who's actually fixing the structural problems that led to the sinkhole? For the past ten years I have seen similar cycles of specifications being published (along with errata) and OEMs leaping to implement attractive features at the expense of doing a good job documenting their quirks (much less implementing standard quirk interfaces -- and vendors of usb components are only slightly less worse than pci components). This leads to spaghetti code in audio drivers, some of which are marginally less hair-loss-inducing than others. The traditional ALSA driver semantics are interrupt-based. PulseAudio, with its emphasis on preventing excessive power consumption through timer-based buffering, expects the underlying driver to duly provide precise and accurate information. For the past three years this approach has utterly destroyed any semblance of stability in the audio stack -- for good reason: the drivers incorrectly assumed the underlying hardware duly acted precisely and accurately. We've been fixing these drivers as such symptoms appear, and we're by no means finished -- nor do I expect we'll ever reach such a milestone. What happens when you have hardware or a driver that acts imprecisely and/or inaccurately? You get some utterly disappointing results as exposed through PulseAudio's glitch-free (standard in Karmic and Lucid) mode. Does this mean that PA is faultless? Of course not; we should do a better job, among many things, by reverting to the traditional interrupt mode. Does this mean that the driver should be fixed? Absolutely. Does replacing ALSA wholesale with OSS resolve the issue? No; we'd only replace one problem domain with another, and we'd still need to maintain all versions with ALSA support *and* continue forward with hardware enablement. This means that you now have to sets of mouths to feed. Various upstream developers of programs incorporated in Ubuntu don't necessarily address the complexities of having *supported* derivatives that deviate from Ubuntu's base, and this issue is particularly telling with respect to the audio stack. Canonical has/will recently brought/bring on board knowledgeable audio hackers. I expect the situation to improve, not worsen. While I applaud your efforts to bring a more usable audio experience out-of-box to casual users, I cannot help but muse that our (volunteer) efforts are better spent improving parts of the stack that most need help: ALSA driver and either PulseAudio or Jack Audio Connection Kit. Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up. PA is happy to grant high latency by default because doing so is more friendly to lower power consumption. Various pulse clients (whether frameworks like SDL or OpenAL-soft) have been fixed to properly specify latency requirements and act accordingly. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fix the underlying drivers. A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task. Your distribution seems like a great place to test such a hypothesis. Please test backward compatibility with native ALSA and PulseAudio applications, too! Best, -Dan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:49 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: How many users actually use Bluetooth headsets with their computers or mute their browsers? I feel that being able to play games without having to edit text files or install alternate packages is much important to the average user then the above features. Chances are people who want to use Bluetooth headsets and to mute browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. Many companies are switching their internal phone systems to VoIP. The company I work for (15,000 seats, half of the users mobile with laptops) just finished this transition, and the next step will be a migration to PC-based phones for those who prefer it. Bluetooth headsets, certainly. Also, there is this little application called Skype that I hear people are using. I don't see the point of the false dichotomy either bluetooth headset support *or* proper game support, either. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I feel I am at least somewhat qualified to speak on this subject, having been involved in the (ill?) integration of PA in Ubuntu many releases ago and for x86 driver quirking many years prior and since. Zero progress really is stunningly ill-informed. Yes, there remain problems with BIOS vendors, mainboard integrators, audio drivers, alsa-lib, PulseAudio, application integration, and so on, but to claim zero progress for any part of the audio stack is quite off the mark. The fact of the matter is that audio deficiencies in any popular Linux distribution raise polemics, none of which is truly on-mark. Perhaps I can do a better job of documenting efforts to combat deficiencies, so this thread is as good a place as any to continue. Put another way: there are plenty people who decry the sinkhole, but who's actually fixing the structural problems that led to the sinkhole? For the past ten years I have seen similar cycles of specifications being published (along with errata) and OEMs leaping to implement attractive features at the expense of doing a good job documenting their quirks (much less implementing standard quirk interfaces -- and vendors of usb components are only slightly less worse than pci components). This leads to spaghetti code in audio drivers, some of which are marginally less hair-loss-inducing than others. The traditional ALSA driver semantics are interrupt-based. PulseAudio, with its emphasis on preventing excessive power consumption through timer-based buffering, expects the underlying driver to duly provide precise and accurate information. For the past three years this approach has utterly destroyed any semblance of stability in the audio stack -- for good reason: the drivers incorrectly assumed the underlying hardware duly acted precisely and accurately. We've been fixing these drivers as such symptoms appear, and we're by no means finished -- nor do I expect we'll ever reach such a milestone. What happens when you have hardware or a driver that acts imprecisely and/or inaccurately? You get some utterly disappointing results as exposed through PulseAudio's glitch-free (standard in Karmic and Lucid) mode. Does this mean that PA is faultless? Of course not; we should do a better job, among many things, by reverting to the traditional interrupt mode. Does this mean that the driver should be fixed? Absolutely. Does replacing ALSA wholesale with OSS resolve the issue? No; we'd only replace one problem domain with another, and we'd still need to maintain all versions with ALSA support *and* continue forward with hardware enablement. This means that you now have to sets of mouths to feed. Various upstream developers of programs incorporated in Ubuntu don't necessarily address the complexities of having *supported* derivatives that deviate from Ubuntu's base, and this issue is particularly telling with respect to the audio stack. Canonical has/will recently brought/bring on board knowledgeable audio hackers. I expect the situation to improve, not worsen. While I applaud your efforts to bring a more usable audio experience out-of-box to casual users, I cannot help but muse that our (volunteer) efforts are better spent improving parts of the stack that most need help: ALSA driver and either PulseAudio or Jack Audio Connection Kit. Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up. PA is happy to grant high latency by default because doing so is more friendly to lower power consumption. Various pulse clients (whether frameworks like SDL or OpenAL-soft) have been fixed to properly specify latency requirements and act accordingly. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fix the underlying drivers. A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task. Your distribution seems like a great place to test such a hypothesis. Please test backward compatibility with native ALSA and PulseAudio applications, too! Best, -Dan I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it does not always work with existing code. Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. It will be subject to a considerable amount of testing. This is partly to maintain
Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it does not always work with existing code. Such is the pain of new code. We face this continually in ALSA and PulseAudio alike, and I don't see how any new framework can be devoid of such pain. Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. It will be What are your test plans for forward compatibility (which is the single largest pain for ALSA)? subject to a considerable amount of testing. This is partly to maintain 100% binary compatibility with Ubuntu. I wish for infinityOS to continue to work with the Ubuntu repos and PPAs as I feel duplication of effort is unnecessary. Leaving aside the nontrivial decision of selecting which PPAs to maintain compatibility with, it's worth noting that you'll be facing a moving target. Which Ubuntu releases do you intend to support in terms of compatibility? Finally, maintaining 100% compatibility is unrealistic. By virtue of using OSS instead of ALSA, you've already increased the test surface enormously such that you'll need to modify certain base packages (if you intend to do things in a manner consistent with Debian Policy). Best, -Dan -- 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
PulseAudio Applets
Has anyone else got this problem? - none of my PulseAudio applets work - none of them Karmic 9.10 RC 64bit -- 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 Applets
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Kyle Amadio kyle.ama...@itvss.com.au wrote: Has anyone else got this problem? - none of my PulseAudio applets work - none of them A bit more detail -- e.g., bug reports -- would be useful. -Dan -- 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 Managers
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:33 +1100, Kyle Amadio wrote: There seems to be something seriously wrong with the PulseAudio managers. And has anyone seen this little blurb from Lennart? Did Ubuntu really f**k this up or http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html Cheers -- 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 Managers
Interestingly enough PulseAudio just got the fame (shame?) of getting featured in this slashdot article: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/19/0155235 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, George Farris farr...@cc.mala.bc.cawrote: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:33 +1100, Kyle Amadio wrote: There seems to be something seriously wrong with the PulseAudio managers. And has anyone seen this little blurb from Lennart? Did Ubuntu really f**k this up or http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html Cheers -- 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 -- 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 Managers
Shentino wrote: Interestingly enough PulseAudio just got the fame (shame?) of getting featured in this slashdot article: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/19/0155235 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, George Farris farr...@cc.mala.bc.cawrote: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:33 +1100, Kyle Amadio wrote: There seems to be something seriously wrong with the PulseAudio managers. And has anyone seen this little blurb from Lennart? Did Ubuntu really f**k this up or http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html Cheers -- 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 Hasn't this been fixed for over a week? + 0053-fix-sigsegv-module-bluetooth-device.patch: Don't strcmp uninitialized memory (LP: #437293 https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bugs/437293) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/437293 -komputes (]( -. .- )[) -- 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 Managers
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 23:50 -0400, komputes wrote: And has anyone seen this little blurb from Lennart? Did Ubuntu really f**k this up or http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html Hasn't this been fixed for over a week? + 0053-fix-sigsegv-module-bluetooth-device.patch: Don't strcmp uninitialized memory (LP: #437293 https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bugs/437293) This is actually the patch that Lennart calls an outright insult... and based on the link in his blog he's absolutely right; that change is ridiculous and, as a maintainer of a free software package myself, if someone modified my code like that in a major distribution like Ubuntu I'd be P.O.'d as well. I'm sure Daniel does great work most of the time, but this change looks like a dud to me. -- 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 Managers
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Paul Smith p...@mad-scientist.us wrote: time, but this change looks like a dud to me. Clearly the right way to debug this is to comment out the patch in debian/series and see why pa_streq() is being passed crap. Anyone with bt hardware and valgrind up for it? http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32493850/Stacktrace.txt -- 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 Managers
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 00:39 -0400, Daniel Chen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Paul Smith p...@mad-scientist.us wrote:
time, but this change looks like a dud to me.
Clearly the right way to debug this is to comment out the patch in
debian/series and see why pa_streq() is being passed crap. Anyone with
bt hardware and valgrind up for it?
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32493850/Stacktrace.txt
The question is what's the point of the patch at all? If the contents
of address are bad, what's gained by allocating memory, copying the bad
contents into it, and comparing that (then freeing the memory)?
Either the address pointer itself is pointing into bad memory, in which
case the act of sprintf'ing it into the newly allocated memory will fail
just like the strcmp does, or else the string that address points to is
bad in some way, in which case what's the point of making a copy of
it; the copy will just be bad the same way anyway.
Plus, unless pa_sprintf_malloc() can handle NULL pointers properly
(possible, I didn't check) this patch actually INTRODUCES a bug that
wasn't present in the original code, by not testing address for NULL
before using it.
The patch should be reverted and the bug should be reopened: this change
has no chance of solving the problem.
Looking at the stacktrace above, it seems that address is a perfectly
legal pointer, pointing to the string (null) (not a NULL pointer!)
Maybe there was some confusion about this. It seems that this string
was generated in the pa_hook_fire() function. Maybe someone passed a
NULL pointer to a sprintf() variant here; on some systems (Solaris for
example) if you pass a NULL pointer to *printf() for a %s character,
rather than dumping core, it just prints a token like (null).
Personally I think this is a stupid idea; I'd much rather get a core
dump I can debug than have random data generated by my code with no
errors.
Since address is known to not be NULL, that must mean d-address is NULL
since that's apparently why the core dump was generated. Since the
prior if-statement seems to ensure that d is not NULL, that means that
d-address itself is NULL. I have no idea how/why that might happen.
If you want a change that will inhibit the core dump, changing the test
from:
if (address !(pa_streq(d-address, address))) {
to:
if (address d-address !(pa_streq(d-address, address))) {
would help a lot more than the current change, as far as I can see.
Cheers!
--
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
PulseAudio Managers
There seems to be something seriously wrong with the PulseAudio managers. Each of them is crashing in my 64bit Karmic, I have reported a bug for this but I thought it might be a good idea to raise it here too. apport (pid 4420) Tue Oct 13 21:38:59 2009: called for pid 4418, signal 6 apport (pid 4420) Tue Oct 13 21:38:59 2009: executable: /usr/bin/paman (command line paman) apport (pid 4420) Tue Oct 13 21:39:00 2009: this executable already crashed 2 times, ignoring apport (pid 25831) Tue Oct 13 21:59:41 2009: called for pid 25830, signal 6 apport (pid 25831) Tue Oct 13 21:59:41 2009: executable: /usr/bin/paman (command line paman) apport (pid 25831) Tue Oct 13 21:59:41 2009: this executable already crashed 2 times, ignoring apport (pid 26165) Tue Oct 13 22:00:11 2009: called for pid 26147, signal 6 apport (pid 26165) Tue Oct 13 22:00:11 2009: executable: /usr/bin/paman (command line paman) apport (pid 26165) Tue Oct 13 22:00:11 2009: this executable already crashed 2 times, ignoring Also getting the same behaviour with pavucontrol apport (pid 2862) Tue Oct 13 22:15:16 2009: called for pid 2861, signal 6 apport (pid 2862) Tue Oct 13 22:15:16 2009: executable: /usr/bin/pavucontrol (command line pavucontrol) apport (pid 2862) Tue Oct 13 22:15:16 2009: this executable already crashed 2 times, ignoring -- Regards Kyle Amadio International TV Shopping Systems +61 411707081 -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
I just want to add to this, this story is a rather inaccurate portrayal of OSSv4 / ALSA: http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-of-sound-in-linux-not-so-sorry.html *However* -- check comments for dawhead. That's Paul Davis of JACK weighing in. Obviously, integration of all these things could be much better than it is; that's a given. But the perception that ALSA is somehow deficient from a quality standpoint seems to me to be distorted. ALSA works very well from a pro audio standpoint when combined with JACK, once you get it all working -- and even on a 'pro' machine, in combination with Pulse Audio for your day-to-day consumer tasks. (This is effectively what's happened on Windows, as well, with Vista/7's beefed-up mixing for consumers in DirectSound and such, and ASIO remaining the choice for serious low-latency work.) And Luke is absolutely right, some of these oddities of OSSv4 I think are deal killers. The last thing anyone wants right now is another massive shakeup - better to keep working through ALSA issues. But, generally, don't listen to me, listen to Paul. :) I hear he's also got a presentation in development on these issues, which would be really helpful; there aren't many people who have both the perspective of being the JACK developer *and* an app developer (Ardour) -- not on any OS. Peter http://createdigitalmusic.com On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Luke Yelavich them...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 07:52:45AM EST, Daniel Chen wrote: Lower sound quality is a red herring. ALSA's default resampler has known and quite audible limitations. The available resamplers in PulseAudio demolish the lower sound quality FUD. Jaunty shipped a configuration using a craptastic one in an attempt to balance CPU usage with perceptive quality. Lessons learned: Karmic will ship with a much better (but more CPU-intensive) resampler. I'd like to add that on a technical level, OSS v4 does audio mixing in the kernel, and uses floating point maths, which is strictly forbidden in the official mainline kernel. Trying to get such code even into the Ubuntu kernel will be similar to getting blood out of a stone. Luke -- 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 -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Davyd McColldav...@gmail.com wrote: Oddly enough, pre-PA, I've never seen any kind of lockup on the SBLive. And You're lucky. Some revisions of the EMU10k did awful, racy things. must point out that the latency issue, whilst more pressing for audio professionals, also steps into the user's realm when a game's audio doesn't align with the graphics on-screen. Someone playing a game, whilst not requiring sub 5ms latency, would probably appreciate sub-50ms latency. Many of the sync issues are PulseAudio _and_ application bugs (e.g., the PulseAudio and xine-lib/MPlayer pause one from last dev cycle), so it isn't that low latency is insignificant on the priority list for PA but that reworking PA's mainloop and timer architectures have the side effect of greatly improving both latency and resource use. able to contribute, if I can work the time in. So, point me at a good place to start, and perhaps I can be more help than just a lazy biscuit next to the hard-working tea. Historically, Ubuntu has carried a shedload of backported (from PA git) patches. I would like, and am working with Luke, to minimise these patches for Karmic's PA. 0.9.16-test1 was tagged recently, and it will be available for testing shortly. Periodically, the question of how to contribute arises, so I'll address it here: If you have C (and/or GTK) or C++ (and/or Qt) experience, then consider working in upstream's Trac bug tracker. Some of the Launchpad bugs affecting the pulseaudio source package are Ubuntu-specific; I'll work on (and welcome assistance in) tagging them as (Ubuntu) distro-specific. As Karmic's pulseaudio source sheds its distro-specific bits, the benefits are apparent, since all Linux distros face similar bugs. If you don't feel comfortable contributing source code, then the Linux audio realm is sorely lacking in test harness(es). There are no unit tests in ALSA, PulseAudio, etc. There are no end-to-end tests defined (e.g., for this new HP Mini, attempt to stream this Ogg Vorbis file to an identical HP Mini over an 802.11g network). All distributions will benefit by discussing and implementing them. -Dan -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 07:52:45AM EST, Daniel Chen wrote: Lower sound quality is a red herring. ALSA's default resampler has known and quite audible limitations. The available resamplers in PulseAudio demolish the lower sound quality FUD. Jaunty shipped a configuration using a craptastic one in an attempt to balance CPU usage with perceptive quality. Lessons learned: Karmic will ship with a much better (but more CPU-intensive) resampler. I'd like to add that on a technical level, OSS v4 does audio mixing in the kernel, and uses floating point maths, which is strictly forbidden in the official mainline kernel. Trying to get such code even into the Ubuntu kernel will be similar to getting blood out of a stone. Luke -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 01:47 -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: After reading this post on Insane Coding (via Slashdot) it seems that PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due to horrible latency [Data needed] and lower sound quality [Data needed] and that we should work to use OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to be worth it. What do others think about this? That the blog post was long on verbiage and contained no data. Also that the author concentrated on the audio-mixing role of PulseAudio to the exclusion of its other, in my opinion more interesting, features such as audio hotplug. Oh, and that the comments suggest that the OSSv4 kernel components would apparently require extensive work to be accepted into mainline. There may be value in considering OSS v4, but the foundation of that consideration should be actual data. I don't believe that blog post (a) contained any data, or (b) made a particularly strong argument for OSS v4 over ALSA. Members of the audio-team may have more interesting and informed contributions. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
Personally, I would welcome just about anything which would help us to lose PulseAudio. Or magically transform PulseAudio into something which doesn't suck. Either way would be fine. Allow me to elaborate (or skip the rest of this post if you don't care): I've had an SB Live for ages. One of the most redeeming features of this card is hardware mixing. Meaning that I didn't care about OSS lockups or ALSA's dmix. Things just worked. Most users like it that way. Recently, when loading Win7 to be able to play some windows-only games, I've found that windows hasn't had proper SBLive support since, well, XP. XP picks up the card on my system but doesn't output sound to it. Win7 seems to think it's a relic from a distant age and refuses to work with it. Creative, apparently, don't care. So the card that I've used for years because of how it rocks under Linux had to go -- I want a system I can just reboot to play my games (that is all windows is good for, imo). I tried using PA's mixing and multiple output to use USB headphones and the onboard Realtek HDA audio. Worked for a while but often left PA locked up. I would have to kill and restart. My nett conclusion is that PA doesn't do well with multiple soundcards, despite the advertisements. So now I use the onboard sound exclusively. PA behaves (mostly) for me, but the sound is a little latent -- and I'm not a person who creates music or anything like that. I can deal with the minor latency because it doesn't really affect me. Someone who mixes digital music on the other hand (and I have a friend who does) can't use PA. Now, when mixing wasn't an issue (ie when I had my SB Live), OSS was all I needed. Apps which wanted ALSA would also work because the kernel supplied the API. But ALSA didn't give me anything I needed. Then again, neither would have done the multi-card output seamlessly. I guess I have to agree with the general consensus that sound is not Linux's stronger suit. I guess it comes back to my initial comment: I would welcome (and I'm sure other users would agree) any subsystem which: 1) Worked (all the time, without random lockup) 2) Wasn't latent 3) Wasn't a mission to set up 4) Just handled mixing -- it's not something the average user thinks about when Redmond has never really made it an issue -- multiple win32 sound apps have just been able to work simultaneously since, well, almost forever. 5) Could handle multiple soundcards easily -- those USB headphones might still come in handy instead of the extension cables from my onboard sound (my keyboard has a USB hub on it -- it was well convenient). Personally, I have yet to see that list met by any system. OSSv4, from the posted article, looks like it handles the average user's requirements quite well. I guess it's up to whether it's worth patching into the Linux kernel for *buntu distros or if the kernel devs want to include it. On the other hand, I have, in the past, after much frustration, managed to get ALSA's dmix to work -- oddly enough, some distros actually have tools to make it work for you. I haven't seen something like that on *buntu (though I have to admit that I didn't look *too* hard because those were the days of the SB Live). It would indeed be a great step forward to have sound work under Linux in the same manner that windows users are accustomed to: it just does (barring stupid sound card providers who drop driver support, of course). -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
OSSv4 is driver stuff. It'd be an ALSA replacement, not a PulseAudio replacement--and like hell ALSA's getting replaced. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Danny Piccirillodanny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due to horrible latency and lower sound quality, and that we should work to use OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to be worth it. What do others think about this? Adding more layers inevitably results in increased latency if not done correctly. PulseAudio's glitch-free mode addresses the interrupt-based problem in a different fashion. Unfortunately, the state of Linux drivers for common audio hardware in laptops is abysmal. Yes, it's trivial to experience high latency using PulseAudio, but that is not necessarily PulseAudio's fault. If you've seen any of my presentations[0] on audio, you'll walk away seeing that Linux audio is a complicated stack to troubleshoot and to improve incrementally. Ubuntu has shipped with suboptimal configurations in the past, but Jaunty was a fairly significant step forward (although many people will dispute it because sound is broken for me). Karmic, by all indications, will be better by virtue of more people spending cycles fixing bugs in ALSA and PulseAudio. For instance, significant buffering issues and audio anomalies have been identified and are nearly resolved in the common case in Karmic, Rawhide, and elsewhere. Closed-source software continues to be problematic. Lower sound quality is a red herring. ALSA's default resampler has known and quite audible limitations. The available resamplers in PulseAudio demolish the lower sound quality FUD. Jaunty shipped a configuration using a craptastic one in an attempt to balance CPU usage with perceptive quality. Lessons learned: Karmic will ship with a much better (but more CPU-intensive) resampler. Now let's consider why replacing ALSA with OSSv4 in Ubuntu Karmic would be a bad exercise: 1) No upstream mainline Linux support - Canonical and the Ubuntu community would have to devote resources to supporting OSSv4 as out-of-tree software, which is nontrivial for an area as significant as the audio stack. The kernel team's lessons learned in supporting such out-of-tree patches has indicated that no one would rather continue down that road. To date, no one has stepped forward to address the significant architectural concerns with merging OSSv4 into mainline Linux. 2) Lack of feature parity - while some HDA codecs are marginally better supported in OSSv4, that list continues to shrink. Creative X-Fi support, USB, USB MIDI support, to name a few, are consistently better supported in ALSA. Due to sheer momentum, that maintenance pace does not hold for OSSv4. That said, no one is opposed to seeing OSSv4 improve to the point where it can be merged into mainline Linux. From the audio team's perspective, it simply makes support resources sense for Ubuntu and its supported remixes to carry support for ALSA and PulseAudio by default. I'd like to add that if someone wants to see OSSv4 support in Ubuntu, that someone just needs to step up and work in the Ubuntu audio team. I volunteer my spare cycles working on Ubuntu audio, so I see no reason why a motivated and resourceful person cannot do similarly. -Dan [0] http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~dtchen/UDS-Barcelona/ -- 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: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Davyd McColldav...@gmail.com wrote: I've had an SB Live for ages. One of the most redeeming features of this card is hardware mixing. Meaning that I didn't care about OSS lockups or ALSA's dmix. Too bad that hardware multiopen support comes at a price: all streams are forcibly resampled, reducing audio fidelity. But I digress... I tried using PA's mixing and multiple output to use USB headphones and the onboard Realtek HDA audio. Worked for a while but often left PA locked up. I would have to kill and restart. My nett conclusion is that PA doesn't do well with multiple soundcards, despite the advertisements. That symptom is a combination of outdated ALSA (-kernel, -lib, -plugins) and PulseAudio. I've outlined[0] release schedule misalignments that exacerbate this symptom. So now I use the onboard sound exclusively. PA behaves (mostly) for me, but the sound is a little latent -- and I'm not a person who creates music or anything like that. I can deal with the minor latency because it doesn't really affect me. Someone who mixes digital music on the other hand (and I have a friend who does) can't use PA. PA is not the use case for people mixing digital music. The Linux audio community is finally coming to a consensus that desktop audio is the realm of PulseAudio, and professional audio is the realm of Jack Audio Connection Kit. Interaction between the two is being improved. I would welcome (and I'm sure other users would agree) any subsystem which: 1) Worked (all the time, without random lockup) Difficult to accomplish when the hardware is faulty, which is far more common on older Creative cards than one might think 2) Wasn't latent Different use cases here, see PulseAudio vice JACK 3) Wasn't a mission to set up 4) Just handled mixing 5) Could handle multiple soundcards easily Being improved for both the desktop and for professional audio OSSv4, from the posted article, looks like it handles the average user's requirements quite well. I guess it's up to whether it's worth patching into the Linux kernel for *buntu distros or if the kernel devs want to include it. Well, if you consider the average user not to care about her/his integrated laptop audio or USB headset, sure... dmix to work -- oddly enough, some distros actually have tools to make it work for you. I haven't seen something like that on *buntu Pre-Karmic shipped asoundconf(1). We've stripped it from alsa-utils, because it was becoming increasingly bearish to maintain, and because the magic alsa-lib runes necessary are really PulseAudio's realm. It would indeed be a great step forward to have sound work under Linux in the same manner that windows users are accustomed to: it just does A noble objective. Now who's with me? -Dan [0] http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~dtchen/UDS-Barcelona/ -- 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
Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
After reading this post on Insane Codinghttp://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-of-sound-in-linux-not-so-sorry.html(via Slashdothttp://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1937210/State-of-Sound-Development-On-Linux-Not-So-Sorry-After-All?from=rss) it seems that PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due to horrible latency and lower sound quality, and that we should work to use OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to be worth it. What do others think about this? -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- 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: Low latency kernel in Karmic to help with PulseAudio?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 6 May 2009, I wrote: For Hardy, this was a significant problem. New versions of ALSA necessary for improved PulseAudio integration were released immediately after 8.04 released. And it has happened again - ALSA 1.0.20 was released hours ago. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKAaqye9GwFciKvaMRAmSZAKCNNbckqdKu76FWc31F0GhdYluGugCgipIM bMm7vbwbAtaPzzy0vojMW30= =5+NG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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
Low latency kernel in Karmic to help with PulseAudio?
Hello, Whilst participating in the Karmic forums, I remembered a discussion about some distros like Fedora running a low-latency kernel which helped with PulseAudio. Is there going to be discussion during UDS amongst yourselves (devs) about enabling low-latency for Karmic as well? See this mailing list post by Lennart of PulseAudio/Fedora fame: https://tango.0pointer.de/pipermail/pulseaudio-discuss/2009-February/003150.html And, I wonder if enabling low-latency mode also improves responsiveness of the user desktop... Regards, Vishal -- 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: Low latency kernel in Karmic to help with PulseAudio?
On Martes 05 Mayo 2009 9:28:20 PM Vishal Rao wrote: Hello, Whilst participating in the Karmic forums, I remembered a discussion about some distros like Fedora running a low-latency kernel which helped with PulseAudio. Is there going to be discussion during UDS amongst yourselves (devs) about enabling low-latency for Karmic as well? See this mailing list post by Lennart of PulseAudio/Fedora fame: https://tango.0pointer.de/pipermail/pulseaudio-discuss/2009- February/003150.html And, I wonder if enabling low-latency mode also improves responsiveness of the user desktop... A real-time (-rt) kernel is available and has been for at least a few releases. PREEMPT (which Lennart says would help) was enabled once upon a time, but I think it was disabled due to high laptop battery usage or something like that. After that email from Lennart, discussion about it came up again, but it was way too late in Jaunty's cycle to be changed by that point. But uh yeah...I do intend to at least bring it up at UDS and see what the kernel team says. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- 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
