http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10495
--- Comment #214 from Rotbart van Dainig rotbart_van_dainig@lavabit.com 2010-02-13 14:47:40 --- (In reply to comment #211)
No, my argument is based on technical objections, the details of which do not belong on Wine's bugzilla.
Links to where those details were elaborated for the _current_ state of both PulseAudio and winepulse will do just fine, thanks.
The argument is that there is no evidence that winealsa cannot be improved sufficiently to work well with Pulse. Until such evidence is presented, a separate winepulse driver is unlikely to be considered.
It's impossible to prove non-existence. That's the most basic logical fallacy.
(In reply to comment #203)
I will continue to object to peoples demands that "Wine must support pulseaudio" (or more specifically this particular patch set) based on the ad populum fallacy.
When it comes to Use Cases, there is no ad populum fallacy like you try to claim.
(In reply to comment #203)
I have no objection to pulseaudio being supported *correctly*.
(In reply to comment #211)
I'd personally like to see progress in supporting pulse, as long as it's done in the right way. It might not be very clear what the right way is but what is clear is that the current patch does not meet the required standards.
Links welcome.
(In reply to comment #211)
winesd
ESD is dead. It has been deprecated by PulseAudio. Stop beating a dead horse. The backwards compatibility of PulseAudio to ESD is not the longterm solution.