[pulseaudio-discuss] Conception of PulseAudio in public through Debian

Roman Beslik rabeslik at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 05:44:47 PDT 2012

On 17.04.12 05:12, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Roman Beslik<rabeslik at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hello.
>> IMHO this is because PulseAudio is somewhat buggy to go into polished
>> distributions. I hardly could use it on Arch Linux, and I am accustomed to
>> general Arch Linux's instability. (Arch Linux is bleeding-edge by
>> definition.) Distributions jumped to PulseAudio too soon. Also, the
>> developers of PulseAudio could split the source code into stable and trunk
>> branches.
> Instability? I'm not sure which Arch Linux you use, but mine is fine,
> with pulseaudio (and without gnome) as well.... Extrapolating a single
> user's experiences to a distribution or project is hardly indicative,
> and Arch offers you a choice on using pulse or not (Gnome doesn't, but
> that's another story).
Bear in mind that you also are extrapolating your experience. Actually, 
the original poster (OP) is talking about bugs, so this is at least a 
two user experience.

There are a lot of complaints. E.g., search "crackling sound" on Arch 
Linux forums. I even saw complaints on forums not dedicated to Linux at 
all. Negative image of PulseAudio is becoming folklore.

Returning to OP's claim, please, share your thoughts. Do you think that 
the claim is false or you have competing suggestions at hand?

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list