[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: how is pulseaudio supposed to work?



On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:07:44PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Come on. The are a lot of thing PA doesn't do right now. Not just this
> one. However, there happen to be a couple of things PA can do very
> well.
> 
> What kind of stupid game is this, anyway? You find cases where PA
> doesn't work without manual reconfigration. And then you ask me, and I
> say, "yes, it doesn't work", and then you tell me "yes, i thought so,
> PA is total crap." I you want we can play this game with swapped roles:
> I find a feature that software you wrote doesn't do and then I
> tell you "Your software sucks big time." It certainly would be a lot
> more fun for me that way!

Where did I?  Please, tell me, where did _I_ say your software sucked?

I gave you a real world (as in, my home) use case.  I asked you if PA
supported it as is (with or without specific configuration of course),
and if not if it could be modified to support it.  Your answer at that
point seems to be varying between "just disable PA", "you don't want
to reconfigure so fuck off" and "why do you hate me", which is
kinda... surprising.  Please have a beer or any other beverage of
choice and a long shower/sleep and try again.


> > So now gdm and using a panel is a fedora requirement for multiuser
> > support?
> 
> We try our best to supply you with easy-to-use software for doing
> f-u-s. And all you do is telling us is that you refuse to use our
> software, but go on complaining that f-u-s doesn't work for you?
> 
> How do you think we should be fixing this? I mean, it's hard to get
> this fixed for you if you don't want to use our code. Don't you think?

The '?' at the end of a sentence usually means the sentence is a
question.  I don't know f-u-s, I barely heard its name before this
thread, and given I don't use a panel there is close to no chance I'd
find it just by looking around.  I'd incidentally be curious to know
where I said it wasn't working for me, since I never tried it in the
first place.

Is wanting to know whether multiuser is only supposed to happen
through f-u-s nowadays (vs. multiple X servers on different VCs which
is a method that has worked for more years than Fedora has existed)
that out-of-line a request?  My next question would have been how
users coming in through ssh were integrated in that scheme.



> > Where fine means "only the currently selected user can do sound", from
> > what you wrote too.  Which, if you had bothered to read my use case
> > with your brain on, you'd have noticed is not fine at all.
> 
> Let's stop this stupid discussion now. I already wrote countless times
> on this thread: with some minimal reconfiguration you can get PA
> working for you, or can bypass it, whatever suits you best.

I've seen a lot of contradictory handwaving with usually keywords like
"ConsoleKit" in the middle, I've yet to see a clear example of such
"minimal reconfiguration".

I was expecting answers that looked like "you have to configure CK to
do X and each user/entry login has to start its own daemon and ..." or
"PA can't support it at that point, it needs X added first", that kind
of thing.  Not what I got.


> And I already explained in detail why we chose to do multi-session
> support the way we are doing it. We tend to do our stuff for good reasons
> the way we do. And we explain them to anyone who asks. And we take
> suggestions. But in the end, the one who produces the code is ... the
> one who produces the code.

The only reason I've seen yet is security in non-trusted multiuser
environments.  Which is only one kind of environment, no more and no
less important than the others like "trusted multiuser", "multihomed",
"mediabox" and others.

  OG.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]