Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?

Christopher James Halse Rogers chalserogers at
Sat Jun 20 12:08:35 UTC 2009

On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 01:47 -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> After reading this post on Insane Coding (via Slashdot) it seems that
> PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due to
> horrible latency
[Data needed]
>  and lower sound quality
[Data needed]
> and that we should work to use OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to
> be worth it. What do others think about this? 

That the blog post was long on verbiage and contained no data.  Also
that the author concentrated on the audio-mixing role of PulseAudio to
the exclusion of its other, in my opinion more interesting, features
such as audio hotplug.  Oh, and that the comments suggest that the OSSv4
kernel components would apparently require extensive work to be accepted
into mainline.

There may be value in considering OSS v4, but the foundation of that
consideration should be actual data.  I don't believe that blog post (a)
contained any data, or (b) made a particularly strong argument for OSS
v4 over ALSA.

Members of the audio-team may have more interesting and informed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list