LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2017, 09:56 AM   #46
bassmadrigal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Newport News, VA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,589

Rep: Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733Reputation: 1733

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Sorry to interject, but this is not a "professional environment". It's a Linux community forum, populated overwhelmingly by volunteers.

That's a very different scenario, users are not customers/consumers and those providing any help/responding to posts are not employees with customer services training.
I know it isn't professional like a formal store front, however, we are the defacto support forum for Slackware. When users need help, they turn here. What they see here is a reflection on Slackware, whether or not it is intended to be, or whether or not we are the official or unofficial support forum (Slackware.com doesn't list it as official, however, slackbook does... I'm not sure which is the case). Calling anything a POS should be avoided...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
No offense intended, but you may be nitpicking here - and referring to a piece of software as a "POS" is not name calling by anyone's definition - as that would usually mean targeting a person(s).

Most users/potential users are mature and level headed enough to be able to judge software on it's merits, usefulness and how well it fulfills their needs, not from some off the cuff comments and opinions being expressed on a forum.
If it were one or two posts, that is easily disregarded, however, this, for a lack of a better word, name calling been used since pulseaudio made an appearance. When people run into problems with pulseaudio, searches could lead them to these threads and they could get a bad taste of the type of support we try and provide in this forum. Since pulseaudio integration is likely to just get deeper in Slackware, and people will no doubt want to remove it, we don't need to consistently call it a POS. We should be able to just calmly discuss what needs to be done to remove it. We can easily discuss the removal of KDE or XFCE without all the names, why can't we do it with pulseaudio as well?

I don't have any problems with people desiring to remove pulseaudio from their system. Slackware is quite versatile in allowing users to customize their systems. And as I said earlier, if no one else wants to, I'd be willing to host a slackpkg+ capable repo of the rebuilt packages needed to remove pulseaudio... I just won't do the work on rebuilding the packages myself since I wouldn't use them and it wouldn't be easy to test them.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-20-2017, 10:54 AM   #47
selfprogrammed
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota, USA
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 305

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 61
Angry

I have no interest at all in how some other users may have such a limited usage of sound that PulseAudio is perfectly fine for them. Those people should go away right now.

Now it is the first paragraph. Dumping an irrelevant how it "works for me" is of no help to those who are having trouble with PulseAudio. If it is not the same hardware as I have, it is not relevant. As for all the other garbage going on in MY thread, go take it to another thread.

Someone is clicking on "Did you find this post helpful" for political reasons. I see it on little one liners that offer nothing except opinion. Apparently the reps are tainted by political supporters.

I am going to continue with what I have discovered. I want any further comments to be about configuration. If you feel the need to defend PulseAudio, please sit on your lips, fingers, or whatever.

I cannot think well of the PulseAudio development. Outright declaration that it is hostile takeover of the Linux sound system, with little consideration of how it breaks existing programs and working environments. That hostile attitude basically invited lots of angry users, so if you hear of any angry users on this thread, shut up about it. I am looking for ways to restore what worked before and make PulseAudio (where needed) get along in a secondary role. That is not an invitation to argue anything. If you want to comment on this or argue PulseAudio, start your own thread.

** SDL MIDI music
I have SDL MIDI music working again. Upon booting the next day, SDL could play MIDI music.
The SDL library IS still supporting MIDI. I tested it a second day too, just to make sure it was reliable, and it still works. There is probably a gotcha out there that blocks it, and I have yet to discover what it is.

** pavucontrol
This PulseAudio volume control is part of the problem. It leads you to believe that it is the volume control for the sound system, and it is not. It is only the PulseAudio mixer volume control (controls).

** ALSA mixer loading is disabled in the installation Slackware 14.2
You need to make executable the file /etc/rc.d/rc.alsa, so that the saved mixer settings will be restored upon boot. Otherwise the ALSA master volume control is initialized at about 30%.

** ALSA needs a default setting of the ALSA mixer controls.
To save the mixer settings.
> alsactl store

You can do this manually once, after setting up the controls using alsamixer.
You can have the mixer controls saved automatically on shutdown by putting it in
/etc/rc.d/rec.local_shutdown (or similar depending upon distribution). Previous versions used to have it there, enabled by an if detection of alsa.

** PulseAudio problems
The PulseAudio sound goes through both the ALSA pcm volume control and the ALSA master volume control. At least it does with my current setup, and I do not know what it does in other setups.
If either of these is set low (which they are by default), then PulseAudio volume control must set higher, which leads to that mixer clipping peaks. That is one thing that is making PulseAudio sound so bad.

PulseAudio goes through the ALSA master volume control, so any program that sets volume by changing the ALSA master volume control (like music players) is going to change the PulseAudio volume too, and without it showing on pavucontrol.

If PulseAudio was written to cooperate with the existing ALSA sound system, it would have brought the sound into ALSA somewhere independent of the other ALSA users. When PulseAudio outputs to ALSA, it ought to have its own volume control in the ALSA mixer. The same is likely true of JACK, esound, and other mixers.

If PulseAudio always goes through the ALSA mixer devices, even when it intercepts ALSA directed outputs from other programs, then it is always going to need the ALSA mixer controls set to 100%. I have seen at least one other help that mentioned setting ALSA mixer to 100%, so it is apparently necessary. This is then a failing of the Slackware 14.2 installation when it disabled setting the ALSA mixer controls.

Still need to figure out how to write my program to evade that forced redirection to PulseAudio in the asound.conf file.

I have posted everything I currently know about PulseAudio detection of AC97.

The output of "lspci -v" contains this:

00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233/A/8235/8237 AC97 Audio Controller (rev 60)
Subsystem: Chaintech Computer Co. Ltd VT8233/A/8235/8237 AC97 Audio Controller
Flags: medium devsel, IRQ 22
I/O ports at eb00 [size=256]
Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2
Kernel driver in use: snd_via82xx
Kernel modules: snd_via82xx

The output of " /proc/asound/cards" contains this:
0 [V8237 ]: VIA8237 - VIA 8237
VIA 8237 with VIA1617A at 0xeb00, irq 22
1 [UART ]: MPU-401 UART - MPU-401 UART
MPU-401 UART at 0x330, irq 10

dmesg did not have any lines that I could find.
If PulseAudio is limited to what udev detects, then it is not universal, and some users are going to need alternatives. Another case of we can automagically detect all your hardware, that does not detect all the hardware. Program long enough, and you learn that whenever "ALL HARDWARE" appears as a claim, a failure is soon to follow. The ability to select and configure alternatives (without spending 3 weeks researching) is necessary.

Last edited by selfprogrammed; 03-20-2017 at 11:35 AM.
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-20-2017, 03:12 PM   #48
55020
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Yorks. W.R. 167397
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 949
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196Reputation: 1196
Quote:
Originally Posted by selfprogrammed View Post
I have no interest at all in how some other users may have such a limited usage of sound that PulseAudio is perfectly fine for them. Those people should go away right now.
Goodbye! Have a nice life!
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-22-2017, 07:24 AM   #49
FTIO
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Distribution: Slackware 14.2_64
Posts: 217

Rep: Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020 View Post
Goodbye! Have a nice life!
So you get butt-hurt because the OP has asked that those who don't want to post on-topic and would rather blather on about anything but the topic?

To the OP...go back to 14.1. It's the last Slackware to work properly with sound (ALSA). 14.2 and this pulse-audio abortion that escaped from the garbage can it was thrown in is seriously a bummer, thus I'm glad I kept my old 14.1 on a second hdd. I tried several times in other threads about this pulse thing to get alsa working again, but in the end there were always things screwing up elsewhere eventually and I'd end up re-installing 14.2. I hate to say it, but I fear there won't be a 14.3 (or whatever) on my system if it's got this pulse thing still. Best of luck to you in your endeavors though with this thing. I wish I was schooled in programming and such things to be able to get into the depth you have and try to help out somehow. Good to see you're not a quitter though.
 
Old 03-22-2017, 10:21 AM   #50
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 499

Rep: Reputation: 176Reputation: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Hell, I get freaking paid professional developers whose initial bug reports are pretty much "I tried to do X and it didn't work." No logs, no detailed description of what they were doing, and no indication of the versions of the code with which they are trying to "do X". Remember, these are people who manage to debug the stuff that they write.

So, yeah, I think in a public forum such as this, where the people asking for help might not have debugged a software problem in their entire life, that @ppr:kut so rarely gets enough detail about the problem without having to pull teeth that he might comment such as he did.

You, OTOH, appear to be letting your dislike of pulseaudio spill into your perception of others and their intentions.
So since your post illustrates the thing I mentioned in other threads, which is why I asked the question here, I'll explain to you. There seems to be a cycle of conflict (I'll refer now as the poettering trap), where people seem to label each other and focus on the labeling. In this case it is whether you are a pulseaudio hater or lover. Today, since pulseaudio is available as part of the distro, there has been growing attacks on people not using it, calling them out as "haters" or "dislikers" as you've done, with flimsy reasoning. I think this is a troubling trend, since many people here are using slackware for its flexibility, and are now getting castigated about for their setup choice. Just so you understand, I'll use whatever solution is the best solution for my application. This is not about hating.

Therefore, the matter is not about classifying professional, the words they chose, or bug report filing. It's about whether we can get to problem solving without labeling each other then focusing on that instead. So I asked for clarity; is it really that everyone else does not research their pulseaudio problem, or have other been solutions presented before now? Exaggeration, or...?

I'd hope that peoples suggestions stop being castigated.

Last edited by the3dfxdude; 03-22-2017 at 10:24 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-22-2017, 11:06 AM   #51
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 499

Rep: Reputation: 176Reputation: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppr:kut View Post
No sarcasm, but just to be more clear, I was talking about pulseaudio problems specifically not general problems. From my memory this was truely the first instance where a user with frustrating pulseaudio problems presented actionable intel on what's going on/wrong. It's perfectly possible that there were others that I didn't read or didn't remember reading. If so, mea culpa.
Hi, just found this message in the thread. Thanks for the response! I understand your view better.
 
Old 03-22-2017, 03:01 PM   #52
Gerard Lally
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware64, Crux64, NetBSD64
Posts: 1,118

Rep: Reputation: 658Reputation: 658Reputation: 658Reputation: 658Reputation: 658Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3dfxdude View Post
So since your post illustrates the thing I mentioned in other threads, which is why I asked the question here, I'll explain to you. There seems to be a cycle of conflict (I'll refer now as the poettering trap), where people seem to label each other and focus on the labeling. In this case it is whether you are a pulseaudio hater or lover. Today, since pulseaudio is available as part of the distro, there has been growing attacks on people not using it, calling them out as "haters" or "dislikers" as you've done, with flimsy reasoning. I think this is a troubling trend, since many people here are using slackware for its flexibility, and are now getting castigated about for their setup choice. Just so you understand, I'll use whatever solution is the best solution for my application. This is not about hating.

Therefore, the matter is not about classifying professional, the words they chose, or bug report filing. It's about whether we can get to problem solving without labeling each other then focusing on that instead. So I asked for clarity; is it really that everyone else does not research their pulseaudio problem, or have other been solutions presented before now? Exaggeration, or...?

I'd hope that peoples suggestions stop being castigated.
Some days it feels as though this has become a Red Hat forum, with the way certain members want to impose "official" solutions on others. You can't even ask how to do a minimal install of Slackware these days without these people discouraging you and applying the party whip.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bypass pulseaudio problems and crashes when you don't have pulseaudio. Rinndalir Linux - Software 1 08-31-2016 01:00 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration