• 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I use Pipewire now but Pulseaudio is (and has been for years) better than both the Windows and Mac audio stack. It may have been bad once (yes, I remember the days of having to start Wine with some pulse env var so the audio doesn’t crackle) but nowadays it doesn’t deserve the level of hate it still gets.

    • warmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t Red hat also responsible for Pipewire and Wayland?

      I love to hate them for what they did recently, but those two projects kick major ass.

    • gens@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It would have been fine if it wasn’t forced. “We are the audio stack everyone should use” but when it doesn’t work then it’s an ALSA bug and alsa ppl should take the blame (even when it works fine with full alsa, like my audio card). And it was designed more like a networking stack then an audio stack.

      Sure it was necessary at the time (so that hdmi, and later bluetooth, would work transparently), but the “i know best” attitude hurt its execution.

      SystemD on the other hand brought nothing of value. Did way more harm then good.

      • Pasta Dental
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Quit your bullshit, nothing was ever forced on you. This is Linux, free software and all that, if you’re not happy then use a systemd-less distro and stop complaining about meaningless points. SystemD works very well for me (and the vast majority of the Linux community) and is very easy to use and understand

        • taj@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          This. If you want to go back to the days without systemd and writing invit scripts manually, knock yourselves out. The rest of us will continue to live in the modern world of systemd, pulse audio (and now pipe wire).

        • gens@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Udev was changed to depend on systemd. No good reason for it. So it practically was forced. You can lie all you want, it won’t change reality. SystemD was hyped up by comparing it with the worst implementation of sysV, at a time when no major distro other then fedora even used sysV. And that is not even the tip of the pile of dishonesty.

          Just by saying that it is no better then alternatives of the time will get ignorant people like you to yell. That is how strong the hype was around it. How can you even talk about free software when RH can take a core component and make it hard dependant on whatever they want. Just like bluetooth has a hard dependency on PA. I’m also free to say something sucks, just like you are free to lick their balls.

            • gens@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It always was about feelings with you fanboys. Pathetic.

              PS I wouldn’t mind using systemD, it’s the same as every other. Functionally absolutely the same.

              • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                As someone currently actively supporting two commercial products, one using OpenRC and one using systemd to meet different requirements for different projects

                Functionally absolutely the same

                Makes it blatantly obvious you have no idea what you’re saying

                • gens@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  As someone who wrote an init system for fun and knows how udev and practically everything else associated with bringing a modern computer to a fully functional state (including network mounts, if that is your nitpick) works, i can not know what you are nitpicking about without you saying it. Not that someone who is actively supporting two commercial products to meet different requirements would have any idea what i am saying.

                  PS It’s all simple really, just that it seems magic to people without curiosity.

                  • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Sure - it’s primarily the way systemd uses cgroups

                    For example, systemd’s use of cgroups for process monitoring makes it trivial to support setting resource limits for us

                    One of the major issues we’re having with systemd, and the reason we’re using OpenRC on a different project, is the way Before and After with targets still cause all the services to start at the same time, causing resource contention

                    An alternative we’ve used once is to create a special target for the services that had to start early, even if the entire boot took longer, and use a process to then request new targets be started by systemd

                    This project we found it simpler to use OpenRC, though

                    Calling them “functionally the same” without taking into account how process monitoring works on different init systems is disingenuous