On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2012 3:17 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote:
>> I've been wondering lately whether there is a good reason why even udev
>> violates the "one thing and do it well" principle set forth by the
>> co worker of the designer of C and Unix as i
On Aug 13, 2012 3:17 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote:
> I've been wondering lately whether there is a good reason why even udev
> violates the "one thing and do it well" principle set forth by the
> co worker of the designer of C and Unix as it not only dynamically
> creates devices like mdev does but
> I would be surprised if a systemd-based system requires more resources
> than a sysvinit-based one, but that is of course something one would
> have to measure for each particular use-case.
>
How about an init script that creates proc and sys, two devices via
mknod and runs one server or a shel
> If it is true that a noticeable glitch is
> produced, then obviously you have a point, however if the glitch is
> not noticeable then I don't see the problem you have with PA.
In the pro audio world the spinning of a cd has been noted to introduce
errors as well as the windows volume control whi
> Then you should really ask yourself why they take that position.
> AFAICS, there is no solid technical argument for it.
>
I believe they just don't think about anything other than the main
and so do the least possible rather than taking the extra steps (or
have too much to think about or on th
> I think you are forgetting that linux-based OS market usage is <1.0%. So by
> the same logic, why do so many people prefer NOT to use these OSs, because
> they are so good? Are those people all idiots? Sometimes numbers don't mean
> much...
I guess you mean Linux-based desktop OS market usage. L
On 13 Aug 2012 04:31, "Fons Adriaensen" wrote:
>
> Please don't tell me that PA is using 16-bit for its internal
> operations - that would really prove it's complete crap.
>
As far as I can recall from discussion on their list, it's floating point.
And thanks for the explanations fons, I've always
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 01:17 +0200, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:05:25 +0200
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > Until now even this isn't an issue, since AFAIK only GNOME for Arch
> > insists on pulseaudio. But this might change. People for good reasons
> > chose some distro.
>
> I th
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:05:25 +0200
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Until now even this isn't an issue, since AFAIK only GNOME for Arch
> insists on pulseaudio. But this might change. People for good reasons
> chose some distro.
I think if Gnome has a hard dependency on PA, there isn't anything Arch
can do
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 00:41 +0200, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:33:17 +0200
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > The essence of it still is the question, why can't PA be optional?
> >
> > PA isn't needed. PA can be an advantage for some usages. PA can
> > completely break some Linux.
>
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 00:36 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> wrote:
> > The essence of it still is the question, why can't PA be optional?
>
> I don't do gnome stuff, so I don't know the answer to this (I think I
> do, but haven't taken the time to ch
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Florian Pritz wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 11:28 PM, David Hunter wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Arch Linux: Recent news updates:
> >> URL:
> http://www.archlinux.org/news/netcfg-289-drops-initscripts-compatibility/
> >
> > The title of this article seems l
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:22 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 02:43 PM, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
>
> > I also don't quite understand the PA discussion. I am not thrilled
> > to have libpulse pulled in as a dependency, but on the other hand I
> > have never seen it cause a problem in arch.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Fons Adriaensen
> wrote:
> >> Sad to see rc.conf more or less being deprecated too.
> >
> > Yes, it was very convenient to have almost all essential
> > configuration available in a single file. And it's sa
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:14:07 +0530, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:22 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
On 08/12/2012 02:43 PM, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> I also don't quite understand the PA discussion. I am not thrilled
> to have libpulse pulled in as a dependency, but on the other
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 00:44 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:22 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> > On 08/12/2012 02:43 PM, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> >
> > > I also don't quite understand the PA discussion. I am not thrilled
> > > to have libpulse pulled in as a dependency, but on
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:33:17 +0200
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> The essence of it still is the question, why can't PA be optional?
>
> PA isn't needed. PA can be an advantage for some usages. PA can
> completely break some Linux.
What specific problem do you have with programs being linked to
libpulse
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> The essence of it still is the question, why can't PA be optional?
I don't do gnome stuff, so I don't know the answer to this (I think I
do, but haven't taken the time to check). I'm sure the answer can be
found if you were to do
$ git clon
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:22 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> Great discussion
It isn't. Engineering facts are unimportant. Just the benefit is
important.
Some people benefit from PA and for other people it's a PITA.
The essence of it still is the question, why can't PA be optional?
PA isn't needed
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:12:56AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> >> Sad to see rc.conf more or less being deprecated too.
> >
> > Yes, it was very convenient to have almost all essential
> > configuration available in a single file. And it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/2012 02:43 PM, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> I also don't quite understand the PA discussion. I am not thrilled
> to have libpulse pulled in as a dependency, but on the other hand I
> have never seen it cause a problem in arch. Of course I have
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> Sad to see rc.conf more or less being deprecated too.
>
> Yes, it was very convenient to have almost all essential
> configuration available in a single file. And it's sad
> that this is being abandoned not because that brings any
> benef
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:43:08PM +0200, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> I was however sad to see old dependable friends like ifconfig and route
> being deprecated last year.
I had the same initial response to that. But spending an evening
reading the ip manpage and doing a lot of 'exercises' using i
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:43:08 +0200
Joakim Hernberg wrote:
> Sad to see rc.conf more or less
> being deprecated too. Seeing the new man page made me see the
> writing on the wall though, and I have reduced it to an array listing
> the daemons I wanna start.
Better retract this :) Don't know whe
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:49:29 +0200
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I suspect upstream folks are living in an ivory tower.
>
> Nouveau, PA, systemd, GNOME3, GIMP etc. and regarding to GIMP somebody
> posted those links. It's worth to read it, since it's not about GIMP
> only, but about the communication be
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 22:17 +0100, Mauro Santos wrote:
> On 12-08-2012 20:57, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > Is it really possible to know exactly, every time, at what level the sum
> > of the audio streams are? IIRC float point does avoid some issues.
> > However, do you think it's smart to adjust at
On 12-08-2012 20:57, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Is it really possible to know exactly, every time, at what level the sum
> of the audio streams are? IIRC float point does avoid some issues.
> However, do you think it's smart to adjust at least two following
> instances within the same audio chain at th
On 13/08/12||01:28, Aurko Roy wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Arno Gaboury
><[1]arnaud.gabo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On 12/08/12||20:26, jsteel wrote:
>> On 2 August 2012 16:40, Aurko Roy <[2]roy.au...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I am trying to get my gmail to work with mutt
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 07:38:58PM +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> Actually, that's one point where PA is right (even though it's
> wrong on a lot of other points): doing it like (2) avoids amplifying
> the quantification noise if the sound card applies the master gain
> in analog (or use
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Arno Gaboury wrote:
> On 12/08/12||20:26, jsteel wrote:
> > On 2 August 2012 16:40, Aurko Roy wrote:
> > > I am trying to get my gmail to work with mutt but keep
> > > getting this error: "SSL failed: I/O error".
> >
> > > Does anybody have a clue what could be th
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 20:04 +0100, Mauro Santos wrote:
> If we are talking about digital systems, you know exactly what the
> maximum level is
I programmed a 2bit MIDI sampler in Assembler and Basic for the C64, but
even there the sampling was "stolen" from speechbasic and after that, my
knowledge
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM, jsteel wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 16:40, Aurko Roy wrote:
> > I am trying to get my gmail to work with mutt but keep
> > getting this error: "SSL failed: I/O error".
>
> > Does anybody have a clue what could be the
> > problem?
>
> What does your muttrc look like
On 12/08/12||20:26, jsteel wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 16:40, Aurko Roy wrote:
> > I am trying to get my gmail to work with mutt but keep
> > getting this error: "SSL failed: I/O error".
>
> > Does anybody have a clue what could be the
> > problem?
>
> What does your muttrc look like? This works f
On 2 August 2012 16:40, Aurko Roy wrote:
> I am trying to get my gmail to work with mutt but keep
> getting this error: "SSL failed: I/O error".
> Does anybody have a clue what could be the
> problem?
What does your muttrc look like? This works for me:
set imap_user=your-username
set imap_pass=
On 12-08-2012 18:38, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:09 +0100, Mauro Santos wrote:
>> On 12-08-2012 17:11, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:02 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
The second case, where the total gain should be <0dB, I would have
thought intuitively
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 20:57 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 20:44 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:29 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > What does this mean ? It means that the dynamic range of 95 dB is
> > > more than enough. And if it isn't (as in a musi
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 20:44 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:29 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > What does this mean ? It means that the dynamic range of 95 dB is
> > more than enough. And if it isn't (as in a music studio where you'd
> > want higher peak levels and the ambien
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:29 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> What does this mean ? It means that the dynamic range of 95 dB is
> more than enough. And if it isn't (as in a music studio where you'd
> want higher peak levels and the ambient noise level is lower) you
> just need a few more bits, maybe
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:10:10AM -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that's possible, because dB is
> normalized to max power (in watts = intensity).
[ Tom & Leonid ]
> Lots of questions...
I'll try to answer them, but not all at a time (I need to eat/sleep
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 19:38 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > It is never necessary. It it were that would imply that a sound
> > card without any gain controls (equivalent to a fixed 0 dB gain)
> > would fail in some cases. It doesn't. In fact many PRO cards are
> > jus
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:09 +0100, Mauro Santos wrote:
> On 12-08-2012 17:11, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:02 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >> The second case, where the total gain should be <0dB, I would have
> >> thought intuitively that doing this purely in software (especial
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> It is never necessary. It it were that would imply that a sound
> card without any gain controls (equivalent to a fixed 0 dB gain)
> would fail in some cases. It doesn't. In fact many PRO cards are
> just like that.
>
> If you have apps A, B, C with volumes a, b, c you can
On 12-08-2012 17:11, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:02 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> The second case, where the total gain should be <0dB, I would have
>> thought intuitively that doing this purely in software (especially on
>> very faint signals) would be less ideal than doing it
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 12:43 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 10:00 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> [putolin]
>
> > Clearly, PA is not meant for professional audio work. And it might be
> > that for a professional all the PA logic is both unnecessary and maybe
> > even detrimental (so you'd
On 08/12/2012 10:00 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
[putolin]
Clearly, PA is not meant for professional audio work. And it might be
that for a professional all the PA logic is both unnecessary and maybe
even detrimental (so you'd use jack or pure ALSA instead, that should
not be a problem). However,
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:15 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 11:10 -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that's possible, because dB
> > is normalized to max power (in watts = intensity).
>
> You can boost a signal.
... > 0dB for the result of
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 11:10 -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that's possible, because dB
> is normalized to max power (in watts = intensity).
You can boost a signal.
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:02 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> The second case, where the total gain should be <0dB, I would have
> thought intuitively that doing this purely in software (especially on
> very faint signals) would be less ideal than doing it in hw (you'd be
> throwing away the resolution
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that's possible, because dB is
> normalized to max power (in watts = intensity).
If I understand correctly, 0dB is "don't apply any gain". On some
chips, that's indeed the same as max, but I have had
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> So... on my intel AD I have PCM and Master knobs (in alsa). Are you saying
> that I should set Master to max (-0dB) and control volume through PCM only?
FWIW, on my intel soundcard I have Master, PCM and Front. When I
change the system vo
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:02:59 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:00:47PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >
> >> You have showed that it is unnecessary in one particular (very simple)
> >> case. However, you have not sh
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> If you have apps A, B, C with volumes a, b, c you can always
> set the HW gain to unity gain (0dB), and send
>
> s = a * A + b * B + c * C (1)
>
> to the soundcard. What would be the advantage of doing what
> PA does, which is
>
>
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:07:32 +
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 02:47:59AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> > Argument by authority, nice. Care to elaborate? (Sorry to anyone who
> > is sick of PA, but for once I'm seeing the chance to learn something
> > from one of these thr
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:00:47PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
>> You have showed that it is unnecessary in one particular (very simple)
>> case. However, you have not showed that it is unnecessary in all
>> cases, so this is not really r
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:01:06 +
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:00:47PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Fons Adriaensen
> > wrote:
> > > it's just extremely clumsy to use a mixer
> > > that way, you'd need ten hands. For it means that wh
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:00:47PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> You have showed that it is unnecessary in one particular (very simple)
> case. However, you have not showed that it is unnecessary in all
> cases, so this is not really relevant (had we been talking about a
> human doing this, you'd
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:00:47PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > it's just extremely clumsy to use a mixer
> > that way, you'd need ten hands. For it means that whenever you want
> > to adjust a single channnel you may have to adjust *al
On 12 Aug 2012 20:51, "Ralf Mardorf" wrote:
>
> I suspect upstream folks are living in an ivory tower.
>
> Nouveau, PA, systemd, GNOME3, GIMP etc. and regarding to GIMP somebody
> posted those links. It's worth to read it, since it's not about GIMP
> only, but about the communication between users
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 16:00 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Ok. This is what I was wondering about. I will try to listen for
> glitches then (I have not noticed any during my years of using PA, but
> I'll pay more attention). If it is true that a noticeable glitch is
> produced, then obviously you ha
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> it's just extremely clumsy to use a mixer
> that way, you'd need ten hands. For it means that whenever you want
> to adjust a single channnel you may have to adjust *all* others and
> the master at the same time.
Unlike humans, computers d
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:27 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 13:07 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > [4]
> > >
> > > You can't apply a soundcard mixer gain change at some exact
> > > point in a sample stream. So you can
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 15:27 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 13:07 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > [4]
> >
> > You can't apply a soundcard mixer gain change at some exact
> > point in a sample stream. So you can't change the master
> > gain and change your internal scaling to c
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 13:07 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> [4]
>
> You can't apply a soundcard mixer gain change at some exact
> point in a sample stream. So you can't change the master
> gain and change your internal scaling to compensate at
> exactly the same time. There will always be a glitch
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 02:47:59AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Argument by authority, nice. Care to elaborate? (Sorry to anyone who
> is sick of PA, but for once I'm seeing the chance to learn something
> from one of these threads ;-)).
No authority needed here, it's just extremely clumsy to us
I suspect upstream folks are living in an ivory tower.
Nouveau, PA, systemd, GNOME3, GIMP etc. and regarding to GIMP somebody
posted those links. It's worth to read it, since it's not about GIMP
only, but about the communication between users and upstream.
Forwarded Message
To:
On 12 August 2012 02:47, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> This is completely sick. Any audio engineer trying to
>> use a mixer that way would (and should) be fired for
>> gross incompetence - immediately.
>
> Argument by authority, nice. Care to el
On 11 August 2012 23:05, Baho Utot wrote:
>
>
> systemd is one source distributed package
>
> arch split the package into the multiples you see here.
It is one source package, but it provides multiple small utilities.
The coreutils are distributed as one source package that provides many
small ut
On 08/11/2012 11:28 PM, David Hunter wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Arch Linux: Recent news updates:
>> URL:
>> http://www.archlinux.org/news/netcfg-289-drops-initscripts-compatibility/
>
> The title of this article seems like it's going to cause a lot of
> confusion and anger. [..]
S
68 matches
Mail list logo
