Pinos Is For Linux Video What PulseAudio Is For Audio

[duby229]

Bold statement from a man who admittedly lies to his customers to be able to sell more hardware.

Benchmarks don't lie.

[DanL]

I stand by an opinion that Linux audio was not working well 11 years ago and while dmix, esd and artsd tried to solve it, neither of them worked as well as Pulse Audio did.

That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion. But you shouldn't pretend that alternatives never existed, and you should realize it's a "hot-button" issue, at least here on Phoronix.

EDIT: esd was terrible. I didn't use aRTs firsthand, so I can't comment. I won't object if you forget about those. Still, ALSA already had dmix in place and working to some degree and OSS4 had vmix, which worked well for me, even though I didn't need it because my card had its own hardware mixer. I'm not trying to take anything away from Pulseaudio; I just think you should acknowledge others' hard work.

[tinko]

Benchmarks don't lie.

Now that is a bold statement.

[psychoticmeow]

Benchmarks don't lie.

Let me guess. the benchmarks you want your customers to be unhappy with are done with a HDD while the benchmarks you want them to be impressed with are done with an SSD...

[duby229]

Let me guess. the benchmarks you want your customers to be unhappy with are done with a HDD while the benchmarks you want them to be impressed with are done with an SSD...

I benchmark the hardware in their machine vs what I'm trying to sell them. And Yeah, including SSDs. They're pretty easy to sell because of how well they benchmark. Mostly RAM and SSDs. Sometimes video cards too. Rarely CPUs unless I'm trying to sell a new computer.

[liam]

[snip]
The aren't any valid use cases for ultra high latency, high cpu usage audio servers. People can defend it all they want, but they are all flat out wrong.
[snip]

Well, as others have said, high latency is useful for power saving reasons. Other than than, you're right. I don't think anyone would design/create such a system.

[liam]

psychoticmeow are you turning trolling mode ?
One of the first sentence on the blog is:
"For those of you who has been around for a while you might remember how you once upon a time could only have one application using the sound card at the same time until PulseAudio properly fixed that."

DanL is thus not meaning something other than what the author intended. he is just paraphrasing. The sentence meaning is clear, there was no solution for concurrency before PA, which is false. ChristianSchaller admited it himself !
He still thought that everyone not using PA is an idiot and he is quite condescending in his post but that's none of my business.

For those of you who has been around for a while you might remember how you once upon a timecould only have one application using the sound card at the same time until PulseAudio properly fixed that.

CS said no PROPERLY WORKING solution existed...

Come on folks, why are you all looking to twist the words to mean the worst thing?

The things to argue, if you must, are that other proper solutions existed and/or pa wasn't a proper solution either.

[TheBlackCat]

Come on folks, why are you all looking to twist the words to mean the worst thing?.

I hope that is a rhetorical question. You have been here long enough to know the answer.

[tenente]

Sorry liam , my fault then.
I'm not a native english speaker and I thought that "properly fixed that" meant that it did not just fixed it, but fixed it in good/correct/proper way (i.e such a good piece of software we've got here).
For the rest, I don't really see the point on arguing on what solution is better, I already know we have different opinions. (probably because we have different needs)
Just use what seems to fit you best and be cool with others not using it !

[freedom]

This I want to know: Why is PA plagued by latency problems and in Windows/OSX latency is not a problem?