The consensus is ALSA is already catered for in Wine, simply now add PulseAudio and let people choose. Personally I want Wine to run with other desktop applications without the sound dying. Yeah people will say OSS or ALSA already do multiplexing, but for me that has always been a problem. I've got zero problems with PulseAudio though, once you configure your whole system to default to it. Btw, I use KDE with gstreamer.
Originally Posted by 1c3d0g
I seriously think the NAY SAYERS are on Pentium 3's or the like struggling to keep their system from dying and watching screen page flip.
Modern Linux users want Pulse Audio.
The very notion of "third-party" on Linux is mistaken. Everything is third-party... well, maybe except for the Linux kernel and the GNU software collection, depending on your definition. Even ALSA userspace is third-party. Talking about "it's not built-in" is nonsense. PA is as much first-party as any other piece of the infrastructure on any distro that integrates it properly.
Originally Posted by RealNC
That's (along the lines of) what I thought. If a per-application mixer can be allocated manually, I'm certain that someone could extend the API allocate them dynamically. Unfortunately, if I remember the formatting of the .asoundrc and the options for each dmix device (define inputs, outputs, sample rates, etc), it's going to be a big task.
Originally Posted by RealNC
Someone should look at the PA API, and reimplement the PA API on top of dmix (or extend the ALSA API). If it didn't work out, at least it adds some fuel to the fire that appears to be consuming the issue. Some bridges are better off burnt.
I haven't really been a fan of Miguel de Icaza's work since Rage Against the Machine broke up.
I would agree with you unnecessary CPU consumption was PA's only problem. My system is modern, I don't use it. Not saying other shouldn't just saying you're off on your statement. With that being said, I do think wine should be able to handle it if nothing else. I don't really like the idea of wine having a default I guess.
Originally Posted by e8hffff
My understanding was that wine enumerated the available APIs on first-run, and had some order of preference...
Originally Posted by nightmarex
Pulse >= version X
Pulse < version X
While I may be totally and absolutely wrong about this, the sentiment is that the term "default" may be a bit of a misnomer. The user is free to use winecfg if they have a preference.
What does Miguel de Icaza have to do with this thread?
Originally Posted by russofris
I've been told that explaining a joke makes it less funny. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Originally Posted by Delgarde
Hmm. The article discusses competing versions of a wine pulseaudio driver. It doesn't discuss whether wine will have a pulse driver (it does) or whether you like pulseaudio. Try to stay on topic (I know that's difficult).
Anyway, here's a link to the correctly threaded version of wine-devel (although no one's responded to Martin's comment yet): http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine...ead.html#95955
I haven't notice pulse audio since years,except when i have to deal with wine installations.
Originally Posted by Serafean