3

I'm not here to criticize pulseaudio, but I find it immature and unnecessary. It eats system resources, causes confusions, and complicates the system by adding an extra layer without seemingly clear benefits, and I'm not the only one who thinks this way. (In fact, for more "real" complaints, refer to this link: http://amplicate.com/hate/pulseaudio )

Why does Ubuntu come with Pulseaudio as its sound server in the first place? Is there any good alternatives to this as of today?

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

Here is the WIKI page that will make you understand why Ubuntu switched to Pulseaudio.

Improve this answer
2

Here's a good resource for using ALSA/OSS instead of PulseAudio: http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/how-to-switch-to-alsa-or-oss-instead-of.html

As to "why" they chose pulseaudio as the default, I don't know. It probably has to do with a lot of the same reason why they switched to Empathy as the default IM client. Those reasons (at least as far as I know) are related to the framework used in the backend. PulseAudio has a very good backend even if the implementation isn't 100% yet. Same as Empathy, the backend is awesome and super flexible, but Empathy isn't quite as feature rich as Pidgin. It's a forward looking decision I believe.

Whether it was a good decision or not is up for debate.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .