[bandrami]

I'm a desktop Linux user; I preferred the old way. I do get that most people like multiplexing (I don't; I want exactly one sound source at a given time), and I'll grant that has improved.

I banged my head against my desk for a couple of days when Slackware switched to Pulse with 14.2, allegedly because it was needed for bluetooth. I still have difficulty believing that people actually use bluetooth for audio, but apparently some people love it.

[kbenson]

> I don't; I want exactly one sound source at a given time

Really? So you want all app feedback to cease if you're playing music? No IM or new email notifications? That just seems like a pain to me.

[bandrami]

I hate app feedback and notification sounds. I hate notifications in general; I prefer to poll for information I need on my schedule. This is also why I hate desktop environments and use a simple full screen window manager. One task at a time. Hell, lately I don't even bring up X every day if I don't need to. Tl;dr: I'm old.

[rhaps0dy]

Or wise, and you take control of your own attention.

Multiplexing can be handy if you like gaming, and having music from another application at the same time.

Also sometimes it's useful to have a reference manual in one side of the screen and your text editor in the other, or a PDF viewer on one side and a LaTeX editor in the other.

[zeveb]

I'm with you regarding the value of multiplexing. I don't use it much, but it was really annoying back in the day when one program would block another program's sound.

> Also sometimes it's useful to have a reference manual in one side of the screen and your text editor in the other, or a PDF viewer on one side and a LaTeX editor in the other.

True. An emacs which supported the framebuffer could do this (but GNU emacs currently only supports vt100, X, macOS & Windows, IIRC).

[bandrami]

There are some framebuffer[1] consoles[2] that work really well when you do need to mux outside of X.

[1] https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/kmscon/

[2] https://code.google.com/archive/p/fbterm/

[dvtv75]

There's nothing quite as jarring as having a pleasant piece of music turned up, only to have some off-key and out-of-time bell ding because an email arrived. Want to let me know there's a new email? Put a little envelope on the task bar so I can see it. Don't invade my music!

[adambyrtek]

> I still have difficulty believing that people actually use bluetooth for audio

So you don't believe that somebody would like to be able to use wireless headphones?

[bandrami]

Exactly. Why would you trade something that doesn't require power, has the most reliable, secure, and lossless transmission channel known, and is "configured" by plugging in hardware for something that requires power, has a less reliable transmission channel that can be easily snooped or forged, has to be configured in software? I literally don't understand why anyone would ever choose the latter.

[milcron]

I want to own exactly one wireless headset/microphone so that I can get up from my computer without having to excuse myself from voice chat.

[jononor]

Like a laptop or smartphone has over a stationary computer, wireless headsets have a freedom-of-movement benefit over wired.

[zeveb]

I don't: wireless headphones seem strictly worse in every way than wired. They require batteries and charging; they introduce lag; they are expensive; they are easier to lose; they don't have a convenient cable to hang on to.

I am completely and totally flabbergasted by their popularity. It's as though millions of people were turning their noses up at fine, free homemade French food and paying for McDonald's instead.

[hamax]

> seem strictly worse in every way than wired.

The same as wifi, right? Strictly worse in every way. Except for the not needing wires way.

[khedoros1]

Although...different use-cases there, for me. I've got a dozen audio sources, either connected to speakers (the TVs) or within a couple feet of me when I'm using it (phone, media player, tablet, laptop). So, a bunch of sources, a couple of which I might be listening to at once. All either in short enough distance for cords, or loud enough that it's moot.

Wifi: The internet comes from one (inconvenient) place in the home that I can't choose. I've got a couple of powerline ethernet adapters, but I've also got a lot of devices that handle wifi, but not ethernet. The choice is between using wifi or skipping the network connection. It's great as a last- (or only)-resort connection option, and it's usually sufficient, but then my uses for it are usually pretty tame anyhow.

[bandrami]

Wifi has encryption. Bluetooth means I'm broadcasting my audio stream to anybody who feels like snooping on me.

[digi_owl]

Not quite.

Bluetooth was originally encrypted, but gained the option of non-encrypted channels with version 1.1.

On top of that Bluetooth use frequency hopping.

Until recently there was no real hardware for scanning/sniffing Bluetooth traffic, at least not anything easily available compared to a wifi card in promiscuous mode.

[zeveb]

As a matter of fact, my desktop & my laptop are both wired, and I hate how flaky WiFi is on my phone & tablet. Just moving to different rooms in my (small house) does horrible things to my network connexion speed — but Ethernet keeps on chugging along.

[Spivak]

Or want to play music from my laptop to my stereo speakers?

[khedoros1]

> allegedly because it was needed for bluetooth

The bluetooth stack dropped support for ALSA with Bluez 5.0. About a year ago, dev started on a "bluez-alsa" or BlueALSA package the re-integrates an ALSA backend. I've used it briefly; it seems to work as advertised.

I think that Bluez 5.0 came out about the time that Slackware 14.0 did, so it makes some sense that versions before 14.2 would've provided Bluez 4.x for the bluetooth stack.