| |||||||||||||
Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org)Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org)Posted Jul 6, 2011 11:03 UTC (Wed) by alankila (subscriber, #47141)In reply to: Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org) by trasz Parent article: Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org)
Eh. ALSA has been doing software mixing, resampling, and equalizing for something like half a decade at least, but I guess it doesn't do it in the kernel and therefore somehow doesn't count. I don't see anything wrong with using a library instead of some /dev node, technically, to handle audio. Most people probably would say that the library approach is the more flexible one.
And PulseAudio itself can't actually replace ALSA any time soon. At least I am not aware of any plans to absorb ALSA's current hardware handling functionality into PulseAudio itself. The beauty, of course, is that it doesn't matter. People could just write PulseAudio applications and leave the hardware handling for it.
(Log in to post comments)
Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org) Posted Jul 6, 2011 11:20 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Sure it does, but I've seen numerous problems with that in the past. I guess it might be all gone now.
As for replacing ALSA - what I meant was, adding ALSA support in other systems for backward compatibility with Linux only makes sense as long as the software you want to provide compatibility layer to actually uses ALSA directly instead of PulseAudio. With software using PA, one does not the ALSA compatibility layer.
Interview with Lennart Poettering (LinuxFR.org) Posted Jul 6, 2011 13:00 UTC (Wed) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Ah. Thanks for clarification -- bad reading from my part.
|
|||||||||||||