[pulseaudio-discuss] Google ChromeOS reinventing the wheel, ignoring PulseAudio

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:23:46PM +0200, David Henningsson wrote:

> First, look at the "What's next" section of the 1.0 notes [1]. That
> points out what we think are the most important shortcomings of
> PulseAudio currently, one of them is "Routing infrastructure": while
> it is possible to write your own policy modules today, we're still
> lacking a really good solution for handling device priority in
> combination with hotplugging in combination with user configurable
> overrides.

Yeah, this is why the embedded users I'm aware of chose to do their own
thing here (often completely outside of Pulse).

> Should you run into complex bugs, that can be a significant risk for
> a project on limited time budget - of course that is true for *any*
> project, but PA is used in so many environments you must think twice
> before doing anything that might cause regressions in other use
> cases.

Well, for embedded systems forking isn't such a big deal - so long as
you own the systems you can happily fork stuff or stay at an old version
while you work out what the upstream issue is.

[Please don't drop people from the CC lists.]