Prev: FreeBSD 8 and Winbind via pam_krb5
Next: Trying to verify the isos via md5
From: Indi on 23 Dec 2009 20:28
On 2009-12-23, Warren Block <wblock(a)wonkity.com> wrote:
> RandomUser <rannumgen(a)globaleyes.net> wrote:
>> Warren Block wrote:
>>> RandomUser <rannumgen(a)globaleyes.net> wrote:
>>>> If I have FF-3.5 compatible audio/video plugins available, why would I
>>>> want or need Pulseaudio (or any other "sound server") to be required and
>>>> installed by Firefox-3.5?
>>>
>>> Firefox 3.6 (www/firefox3-devel), you mean? The Makefile says
>>> pulseaudio is only needed if you have a version of FreeBSD before 7.0.
>>
>> I am not concerned about the choices made for different versions of
>> FBSD. What I want is to remove the requirement for an application for
>> which I have no use and which eats up a lot of resources.
>
> It appears that the later versions of Firefox need (or at least want)
> sound server capabilities.
>
> On FreeBSD 8, firefox3 (or -devel) wants esound.
>
>> What is that FBSD motto about not introducing changes that break
>> existing applications?
>
> Which motto? "POLA" would imply sound works in Firefox, and the port
> does that.
>
> Which existing application broke?
>
>> In my mind, forcing pulseaudio as a requirement breaks that motto. It
>> should be an option instead.
>
> That may require additional coding which no one has done yet ("Patches
> welcome[TM]").
>
>> That brings me back to my original question: why does Firefox need a
>> sound server - why pulseaudio (or libsydney_oss)?
>
> The freebsd-gecko mailing list would be a good place to ask, or
> developer.mozilla.org.
>

When I first saw the pulseaudio port building for FF35 it gave me quite
a start, but then I'd already had nightmarish experiences with pulseaudio
in Debian. I have no idea why it's "needed" in FreeBSD, AFAICT it isn't
actually used for anything. At least it hasn't caused me any trouble (so
far). Still I'd much rather see FF use just OSS on *BSD. I don't need
no steenkeeng sound server, OSS works fine here. :)

--
indi

From: RandomUser on 11 Jan 2010 21:18
Warren Block wrote:
> RandomUser <rannumgen(a)globaleyes.net> wrote:
>> Warren Block wrote:
>>> RandomUser <rannumgen(a)globaleyes.net> wrote:
>>>> If I have FF-3.5 compatible audio/video plugins available, why would I
>>>> want or need Pulseaudio (or any other "sound server") to be required and
>>>> installed by Firefox-3.5?
>>> Firefox 3.6 (www/firefox3-devel), you mean? The Makefile says
>>> pulseaudio is only needed if you have a version of FreeBSD before 7.0.
>> I am not concerned about the choices made for different versions of
>> FBSD. What I want is to remove the requirement for an application for
>> which I have no use and which eats up a lot of resources.
>
> It appears that the later versions of Firefox need (or at least want)
> sound server capabilities.
>
> On FreeBSD 8, firefox3 (or -devel) wants esound.
>
>> What is that FBSD motto about not introducing changes that break
>> existing applications?
>
> Which motto? "POLA" would imply sound works in Firefox, and the port
> does that.
>
> Which existing application broke?
>
>> In my mind, forcing pulseaudio as a requirement breaks that motto. It
>> should be an option instead.
>
> That may require additional coding which no one has done yet ("Patches
> welcome[TM]").
>
>> That brings me back to my original question: why does Firefox need a
>> sound server - why pulseaudio (or libsydney_oss)?
>
> The freebsd-gecko mailing list would be a good place to ask, or
> developer.mozilla.org.

While POLA is usually used to refer to a specific application, with a
little bit of "license" - in this case I apply it to "user experience"
as a prior "state" that has been broken by the inclusion of Pulseaudio.

As mentioned before - I have no need for this application: break the
user's experience item #1, forcing an application on the user without
their consent, knowledge, or prior warning.

Whenever Pulseaudio executes, overall system performance is notably
degraded, probably due to Pulseaudio's CPU utilization (which I don't
bother waiting to measure as I always kill the blasted task as soon as I
see my system response degrade). Break the user's experience item #2:
the system has been forced to relinquish some of its performance for an
unwanted and unnecessary application that was not selected by the user.

Additionally, when Pulseaudio runs, there are two 64MB shared memory
"files" ('pulse-shm-<some 10-digit number>') now present in /tmp. Break
the user's experience item #3: 128MB of previously available disk space
has been relinquished to an unwanted and unnecessary application that
was not selected by the user.

Finally, forcing Pulseaudio's inclusion in FF or any other application
without user community discussion or explanation (why do "we" need Pulse
audio?) breaks user experience #4: an unannounced change in sound
delivery for the FBSD system? A specific requirement that FF demands
that cannot be satisfied by other system applications or FF plugins that
has not been included in FF (other app) user documentation? Are "we"
following in the footsteps of another group/organization just because
they like Pulseaudio for whatever reason? Why forthwith Pulseaudio?


While POLA is meant to be applied to "ports" (applications) if one
considers "user experience" and "systems resources" as "affected
applications", then the unnecessary inclusion of Pulseaudio "fits the
bill" of the intent of POLA (hmph - if I said that correctly).
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: FreeBSD 8 and Winbind via pam_krb5
Next: Trying to verify the isos via md5