Pulse audio

Daniel Chen seven.steps at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 03:19:53 UTC 2009

2009/10/7 Lukas Hejtmanek <xhejtman at ics.muni.cz>:
> why there is now hard-coded pulse audio in Ubuntu/Karmic?

Simply, this approach is upstream's, and it makes sense resource-wise
to follow upstream.

More bluntly, if you'd like to contribute a novel audio framework to
Linux, particularly Ubuntu, then here's as good a place to start as
any. It would be wise to be aware that many people have tried, failed,
and (wrongly) lambasted others.

> There seem to be many users not willing to use PA at all:
> http://idyllictux.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/ubuntu-904-jaunty-keeping-the-beast-pulseaudio-at-bay/

Many users not willing to use PA is not a compelling reason to deviate
from upstream. Many users not willing to use PA but willing to
contribute resources to the development of a better framework is only
slightly more compelling than the previous. Finally, many users
willing to advance PA is the most compelling reason to fix audio in

Many people miss/ignore the fact that PA has done more to fix ALSA
than any other audio framework. Just because ALSA has appeared to be
sufficient in the past does not mean that it is, or even will be,
sufficient. And it certainly doesn't mean that ALSA is bug-free.

> What are benefits for ordinary users? No, ordinary user really does not want
> to send audio through the network. Ordinary user really does not want PA
> process to eat about 3-5% CPU time (mainly when running on batteries).

These are complaints that plague most new software. Given time, they are fixed.


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list