Please, Ubuntu, do not embarrass me again!

[Basil Chupin]

On 09/06/10 15:23, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Basil Chupin<blchupin at iinet.net.au>  wrote:
>    
>> On 07/06/10 23:34, Tom H wrote:
>>      
>>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Basil Chupin<blchupin at iinet.net.au>    wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On 06/06/10 21:34, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>>            
>>>>>> Pulseaudio is a PITA!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, Ubuntu, do something in respect of getting sound to work "out of
>>>>>> the box" for people who install Ubuntu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> But pulseaudio allows us to match the sound system of Solaris and Mac OS X!
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Nobody is stopping you from using pulseaudio. The problem is that it is
>>>> installed by default and does allow the sound to work for most people
>>>> (read the questions in this ML about people having problems with getting
>>>> sound when installing Ubuntu).
>>>>
>>>> Install alsamixergui by default so that people can get to see all the
>>>> parameters available to get sound working - which pulseaudio does not
>>>> allow as I have already explained - and then if you want to stream or
>>>> whatever your sound then install pulseaudio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> Why should one app hoging the sound to the exclusion of all others be a
>>>>> defining characteristic of Linux?!
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Exactly. Why should a PITA app. like pulseaudio cause such hassles with
>>>> sound for people installing Ubuntu?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I can't begin to understand why anyone would want to use pulseaudio on
>>> OSX given how many problems it creates on Linux and how smooth the
>>> audio experience is on a Mac (or even on Windows).
>>>        
>> Umm, in Windows there is no sound until you install the driver for your
>> sound card. Have no idea about the Mac.
>>      
> The great majority of Windows users buy it pre-installed with all the
> drivers for that box's hardware.
>
> For OS X, everything works out of the box whether you get it
> pre-installed or do a bare-metal install because Macs are built with a
> limited number of hardware configurations. Quite frankly, I tell the
> traders and brokers at work (for whom price isn't a factor), to buy
> Macs when they ask me what they should buy; especially since they all
> have iPods and iPhones (and now iPads) and are therefore familiar and
> comfortable with Apple's style and way of doing things.
>    

I have never had any experience with MACs but as it is also a closed and 
proprietary system like MS I personally would not consider it. However, 
what you advise people is your choice, and I cannot argue against it.

On the point about people buying computers which come with pre-installed 
Windows I agree. I have never owned a computer which came with anything 
installed on it - whatever went on it/them was always what I chose to 
install on it/them myself (simply because I build my computers myself). 
Fortunately I have a bit of know-how to be able to do things like this - 
unlike a friend of mine who cannot even change a lightbulb (literally! 
not metaphorically). And there are others like him which I can quite accept.

However, when I read this forum I get the impression that I am reading 
posts from people who have already have a computer running another 
non-proprietary system, have heard about the merits of Linux and now 
want to try it out for themselves. It is at this point that the wheels 
fall for them when they strike some avoidable problem which could be 
avoided if the developers of, say, Ubuntu, simply won't accept or come 
across some deadhead who has no time for a newbie and comes up with 
put-downs in any response to a question from such a newbie.

BC


-- 
Attorney:   All your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
Witness:    Oral.