[pulseaudio-discuss] system-wide daemon

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Wed Feb 10 15:02:12 PST 2010

On Tue, 09.02.10 17:59, Markus Rechberger (mrechberger at gmail.com) wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The corking stuff in PA is very cool.  I don't think anyone objects to
> > it.  But couldn't we quell all the "PA stinks!" posts by just allowing
> > some processes/groups/users to have constant access to audio?
> >
> > Comparisons to MAC and Windows have been going on for a while, and the
> > PA guys are basically right that PA is more like Windows and Mac than
> > the older sound systems.  If I'm not mistaken, the real issue is all
> > the very valid reasons people out in Linux land have for multi-user
> > simultaneous access to sound.  I'd say those guys are generating most
> > of the negative PA e-mails I read, and not just on this forum.
> >
> you cannot compare it with mac, on mac multiuser access works like it
> worked with alsa and OSS.

Uh. This is very a confused statement.

PA opens the device when the ALSA device node access permissions allow
that. That access is controlled via udev's acl tool. We open the
device when we get access to the device nodes, and we close it when we
lose it.

The legacy OSS device node permissions follow exactly the ALSA device
node permissions.

Which basically means that we simply follow the ALSA/OSS permission
logic. We don't open any new doors, we don't close any from the
underlying system.

As such the destinction between ALSA/OSS and PA regardings access control
is simple not existant, your claim above is bogus.


Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list