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

Re: how is pulseaudio supposed to work?



Lennart Poettering wrote:

I can understand a system that has barely outgrown single-user concepts or something designed as a toy for kids that don't know enough to clean up after themselves making abrupt decisions based on guesswork about what you might sometimes want. I don't understand it as default behavior for a system that is otherwise elegant in multi-user, multi-tasking operation and doing what you tell it to do. If I want it to to stop playing music that I've started, I'll tell it to, thank you.

Could we please just stop this ever-repeating discussion?

Maybe... But could you provide some assurance that your choice of behavior will either be well-documented or changed before being pushed into RHEL (and thus its clones)?

I already wrote multiple times that I am aware that some people would
like the music to continue to play while you switch sessions. And I
also wrote multiple times that I will eventually add support for that,
but it is not high-priority for me.
I do believe that exclusive acccess to the audio devices should be our
focus for now. (And I am not the only one thinking that)

Exclusive access isn't the issue (although I'd prefer multiplexing with an option to grab a kernel lock). Changing it as a side effect of mostly-unrelated events is.

So, that is as good as it gets for now.

I'm very happy to know that the system includes the option to be configured so it takes away access whimsically - my complaint is not specifically about PA or its capabilities, just that this very un-unixlike and thus unexpected behavior is the default embedded in the distribution.

If you are not happy with my choice of priorities, then feel free to
contribute, I am happy to merge all (good quality) patches. This is
Free Software after all, it's all about scratching your itches!

Also, if multi-user Fedora behaves this way or that way by default --
how many people do you think will even notice? You're making way to
much fuss about this minor aspect of f-u-s.

The fact that most people won't know is precisely my problem with this. In my opinion, people should damn well know what to expect from a unix-like OS. If everyone really thinks that the system should no longer do precisely what you tell it to do, please get that philosophy into the release notes and other publicity, or even better, make it a clear choice to be made at install/configuration time. I might even be convinced it was a good thing and choose it myself for some situations if it was a well-explained option.

Please let's stay focused and spend more time on actually hacking
instead of reading and replying to multi-week-long flamewars!

I think you should expect flames about any unexpected behavior changes. What kind of person _wants_ surprises from his computer? This doesn't mean that changes can't be improvements, but they are better if they aren't surprising.

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com



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