Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Journal Comes To systemd

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by reflexing View Post
    You listened to only one side? Didn't you know about broken ALSA drivers? Pulseaudio have been revealed many bugs in ALSA drivers, some of them are buggy as hell even now. The overall drivers quality become better. Win-win situation, even if you use power-hungry ALSA + DMix instead of good-engineered Pulse with much lower power consumption and per-application volume control and better resampling and other cool features Pulse has.
    Typical "It's not bugging someone in this particular way so it doesn't get fixed until it does". People that FUD Pulseaudio probably last used it in 2008 or something when Ubuntu started shipping their badly broken version of an already alpha quality (at the time) Pulseaudio server.

    If they try it again on a modern Fedora or *buntu, they will see it's not bad and when it does fail it's usually because of some broken shit like VLC. Boo hoo. VLC is bad bad bad. Good thing there are options...

    Edit, if you need VLC to work, you can set Pulseaudio to use old fashioned interrupt timing, which will cause the entire system to use more power from all the extra wakeup events, but it hides VLC's bugs pretty well. VLC is designed for Windows XP or FreeBSD style sound systems, not ones that work in modern operating systems like Linux + ALSA + Pulseaudio, or even god forbid Mac OS X with CoreAudio. (Yes, I just said OS X does something right. Shock!)
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-19-2011, 11:44 AM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by reflexing View Post
      power-hungry ALSA + DMix
      I was actually not against Pulse. ALSA has very inefficient software mixer. OSS4 has complete mixer. Hence lots of trolls, using OSS4 themself yet claiming "ALSA+dmix" is enough.

      But why is ALSA+dmix more powerhungry than pulse?? Pulse "wastes" 20-30Mb of RAM, so it has to be more powerhungry than simple mixer, no?
      Upd: Ah, I think I understand what you mean. Pulse sends audio data in bigger packages then sleeps more, hence consuming less power than "brainless" dmix...?

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
        I was actually not against Pulse. ALSA has very inefficient software mixer. OSS4 has complete mixer. Hence lots of trolls, using OSS4 themself yet claiming "ALSA+dmix" is enough.

        But why is ALSA+dmix more powerhungry than pulse?? Pulse "wastes" 20-30Mb of RAM, so it has to be more powerhungry than simple mixer, no?
        Upd: Ah, I think I understand what you mean. Pulse sends audio data in bigger packages then sleeps more, hence consuming less power than "brainless" dmix...?
        Not just inefficient, extremely limited.

        I'm all for mixer in kernel space. I'm not a fan of the entire way Pulseaudio + ALSA work, but it beats the crap out of anything OSS has come up with.

        Pulseaudio is a good software mixer in the wrong place, and OSS has a bad mixer in the right place.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
          Not just inefficient, extremely limited.

          I'm all for mixer in kernel space. I'm not a fan of the entire way Pulseaudio + ALSA work, but it beats the crap out of anything OSS has come up with.

          Pulseaudio is a good software mixer in the wrong place, and OSS has a bad mixer in the right place.
          Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't oss4 require floating point in kernel space?

          Comment


          • #15
            I'm sorry

            I'm SORRY about my comment attributing network-manager to Lennart...

            I'm not sure where I got the idea. It may be that the hatred I recently felt for systemd (before removing fedora from the machine) reminded me very much of the hatred I felt for network-manager.

            Its a very cool idea whose implementation leaves the user (me) bleeding, because I got to experience all the sharp edges.

            I never did figure out how to restart gdm without rebooting the machine... somehting that has been simple with every other init system I have ever used.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
              I'm SORRY about my comment attributing network-manager to Lennart...

              I'm not sure where I got the idea. It may be that the hatred I recently felt for systemd (before removing fedora from the machine) reminded me very much of the hatred I felt for network-manager.

              Its a very cool idea whose implementation leaves the user (me) bleeding, because I got to experience all the sharp edges.

              I never did figure out how to restart gdm without rebooting the machine... somehting that has been simple with every other init system I have ever used.
              Can you articulate your thoughts or should we play charades?

              Shadow puppets? It's a bird, no it's a chainsaw, no...

              20 questions: It's a vegetable, I know, FreeBSD!

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                Upd: Ah, I think I understand what you mean. Pulse sends audio data in bigger packages then sleeps more, hence consuming less power than "brainless" dmix...?
                that's the gist of it. The timing code it implements not only makes it significantly more power efficient, but also helps to guarantee a nice balance between potential skipping (buffer draining while the audio app is blocked or the system is too bogged down) and fast seeking (which requires that the buffers not be too big, as once they're sent out they can't be "recalled" from the hardware buffers.

                Basically, smart algorithm >> stupid algorithm. The rest of the framework just abstracts away all the details like the low-level API, sources and sinks, etc, which literally requires a sound manager daemon to have any hope of working.

                Putting the algorithm in the kernel makes little sense because there is no gain for doing so. The kernel has no magic properties that makes the mixing faster or more power efficient, and the rest of the pulsesaudio stack is "policy" and hence not suitable for kernel land.

                But clearly everyone bitching here is a seasoned kernel dev and audio processing engineer and knows better than the pulsesaudio, ALSA, kernel, and distribution guys.

                Comment


                • #18
                  wrong

                  Originally posted by reflexing View Post
                  Why do you think Lennart have anything to do with network-manager? Anyway, IMHO Lennart's pulseaudio and systemd are one of the best services developed for Linux in recent years, very well-engineered.

                  It looks like you just don't like Lennart personally.
                  i doubt that this guy is familiar with intricacies of Lennart's personality. and so am i, which isn't stopping me from considering pulseaudio and network-manager being worse things even happened to GNU/Linux. i would gladly use systemd and, maybe, even this "journal" thing. but those 2 turds ?
                  count me out. i prefer manual/connman and alsa+nas (network audio system), thank you very much.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
                    I never did figure out how to restart gdm without rebooting the machine... somehting that has been simple with every other init system I have ever used.
                    How hard did you look? I just threw "system restart service" into Google, and it tells me that the command you want is "systemctl restart gdm.service". Seems pretty simple to me...

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      just what we all need ...

                      Another pile of rubbish we don't need that will take 5 years to even work ... The document's justifications are laughable as well, they read like they're put together by someone who is trying to prove their point by using made up justifications that don't match reality (i.e. they don't know what they're talking about).

                      Pulse audio and network manager all over again. 2 particularly egregious examples of poorly written software foisted upon unwilling users with dubious potential use-cases of limited utility. Despite claims to the contrary these things still do not work reliably, and are not smartly designed or well put together. Although it sounds like the groupies are out in force here trying to beat people into submission.

                      Anyone would think they were intentionally trying to undermine gnu/linux as a serious platform.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X