Martin Stransky (stransky@xxxxxxxxxx) said:
> >The sound test failed when I had rhythmbox running.
>
> Do you think it's a bug?
Depends. Opening up a gst pipleine to play the test sound may be
overkill.
> >1) I'm supposed to pick a PCM device and know what the difference is
> > between:
> >
> > Intel 82801DB-ICH4
> > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - MIC ADC
> > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - MIC2 ADC
> > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - ADC2
> > Intel 82801DB-ICH4 - IEC958
> >
> > intuitively? (Moreover, I'm asked to do this in two different places.)
>
> These names depend on driver writer, if you don't know just use the
> default. Optionally I can move it to some "advanced" settings.
What situations would someone logically wan to suggest a non-default?
Using SPDIF? Something else?
> >3) How is the user supposed to know whether to use kudzu, /proc, or HAL
> > detection? Why are they even *given* a choice???
> >
> >I'm failing to see what sort of usage case this is solving. Surely this
> >should all just work?
>
> It's because:
>
> kudzu detects only internal cards (kudzu doesn't detect USB cards well),
> but it works even if you don't have loaded drivers. So you can reload
> drivers for your card if something bad happens, you have ISA card and so on.
But this isn't something the user can fix, so why are we handling it here?
I guess my concern is, why are we giving the user a 'test if it works ->
ok, it didn't -> punt' algorithm? Generally, they would get the same
result if they started up their sound app and noticed it didn't work -
what specific cases is this tool able to fix for them?
> >(I note we have a completely different Sound preference anyway, which is
> >somewhat simpler.)
>
> I've never heard anything about "Sound preference", so if there is
> something like that can I read it somewhere?
System->Prefereces->Sound under GNOME. KDE may have something else entirely.
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
|
