Linked by Rahul on Fri 24th Oct 2008 22:02 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 335000
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: 5. Improved PulseAudio
by siki_miki on Sat 25th Oct 2008 22:39
in reply to "RE[2]: 5. Improved PulseAudio"
No it hasn't. They claim portability on their website, yet trying to actually compile the source for systems other than Linux will fail because assumptions for Linux are made in code, code snippets that simply would need #if-def'ing, yet aren't.
Defending PA again:) Although PulseAudio developer was targetting cross-platform support, he is a Red Hat employee now and obviously doesn't spend time on ports. However he suggests to application developers against using Pulse API directly and promised to provide a cross-platform API that will be sound system agnostic.
RE[4]: 5. Improved PulseAudio
by Weeman on Sun 26th Oct 2008 14:04
in reply to "RE[3]: 5. Improved PulseAudio"
However he suggests to application developers against using Pulse API directly and promised to provide a cross-platform API that will be sound system agnostic.
You don't honestly expect this thing to be properly cross-platform, when the developer's carrying mantras a la "Slowlaris" and "BSD is dead" around. And I don't consider Windows as cross-platform option, since it is the last operating system on a long list that'd need something like PulseAudio.






Member since:
2006-03-20
No it hasn't. They claim portability on their website, yet trying to actually compile the source for systems other than Linux will fail because assumptions for Linux are made in code, code snippets that simply would need #if-def'ing, yet aren't.
Edited 2008-10-25 18:43 UTC