[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The Great Pulseaudio Mixer Debate: a modest (productive) proposal

On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 03:34 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 24.04.09 23:48, David Woodhouse (dwmw2 infradead org) wrote:
> > I don't think we're just going to decide that Fedora doesn't care about
> > these users -- and from what I saw today I don't think it's likely that
> > the PA folks will decide that they _do_ care.
> > 
> > So it looks like if we keep PulseAudio as the core around which Fedora
> > audio support is based, we're _always_ going to need to keep something
> > extra to fill the functionality gap.
> Oh great. This sounds like an invitation to stop working on cleaning
> up the volume control situation entirely. If we never can get rid of
> the old cruft and need to prominently feature it in all future release
> then why even try?

I believe that our user interface people are good enough that they can
find some middle ground -- somewhere a long way from the oft-cited
alsa-mixer-of-doom, and much closer to the nice but oversimplified F-11
implementation of gnome-volume-control -- but which actually lets people
have better control over their hardware _when_ they need it.

I don't believe that we're really limited to one extreme or the other.

So no, I don't believe that it's an invitation to stop working on it at
all. It's merely an invitation to do better.

David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David Woodhouse intel com                              Intel Corporation

Hell, I suck at UI design and even _I_ can make a UI simpler just by
ripping functionality out of it. Surely we have people who are better
than that? 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]