[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mplayer debs, was: Re: AVI player recommendations
Well I have read the details of installing mplayer and I don't have a
problem with it. In the end I will do it however it works, if that makes any
sense. The attitude at mplayerhq.com is arrogant and arrogance always has to
do with ethics. You may be able to get past this arrogance but I cannot. They
are arrogant to the extent of being offensive. They insult manufactures, they
insult users, and they,in many of their forums, insult newbies and regular
users alike. This akin to going on one of the BBS's and seeing newbies
answered with curt answers or suggesting that they try and translate the
sometimes cryptic man pages? Or what about the suggestions do this or that or
this without even asking the new user if they know what they are talking
about? If they don't want someone copying and distributing their brainchild
then they should not be open source and as far as I can decern distributing
in the legal sense includes the accepting of cash and having a deb, RPM, or
other such binary for free consumption is not breaking the licenses of open
source. As well why forbid binaries to be distributed and yet tell everyone
how to do it as the do in TFM?
As Jason commented don't use acronyms I have been using Linux and help
forums for awhile but I really hate when people use them because I am not
into the speak. I do use them whenI am fairly sure that the person on the
other end knows what the hell I mean. RTFM. I can read the manual
just fine thanks, but if it leads to the app not working and the install
appeared to go find then I go TFBBS or the FMLs and ask what I may be doing
wrong from people that I expect have tried or are running the app!
In the end I came here to get help not be lectured about how my views differ
from yours. I made a mistake of not paying attention to whom I mailed this
to and I expected some flames about it. So be it. But I don't like it when
some accuses me of not doing what I have done. I have been using Linux long
enough to know that reading the manual for an install, especially a compiling
installation, is a must. Don't accuse some one of something until you know
the real details. Using apt to try and install the 'illegal' debs, with the
proper commands that I read from the help file, finally showed why mplayer
was not working. And parusing this list and the bulletin boards have given me
details of how I can check if a compiled program will work. This information
I had never came across or been informed of before and trust me I have spent
hours reading all sorts of details to get stuff working, installed, etc. in
Linux.
I read the manual on how to set up my PPPoE on Libranet and it didn't work.
I installed newer apps for it and bang I was on the internet. If you had been
reading this list you would have seen that I had trouble with getting my USB
printer working. Many told me that I would have to recompile my kernel, I
even did, and as I was doing that I noticed that I had USB printer support
already in there. I got information from people here on what to check to see
if it was there. So I did. In the process I checked and found that there was
no /dev files for any of my USB functions that existed in my kernel. I asked
if this had anything to do with it and most said I would have to recompile my
kernel to include USB printer support.
Well, three people, and they know who they are, managed to click into my
line of thinking about the /dev files/directories and they gave me the
necessary info to create /dev directories, nodes and major/minor numbers for
my printer. Now it works. Now where in the manuals does it say that I have to
create the /dev files for USB?
I know that you did mean well and that this email is only going to be
trouble. So please accept my apology in advance, but I really needed to
correct you on the matter of assuming that I know nothing. I don't know alot,
but I am learning and I need help beyond manuals sometimes and asking people
that are more experienced, even if it might betray my stupidity, usually
helps me more. I often find the help online after the fact but more often
than not it is when I am researching an unrelated topic.
Finally, I likely will go back and RTFM after my system is upgraded enough
to be able to use the app. Unless I find another app on the way.
Sarah
On Thursday 10 January 2002 09:45, Montz, Michael wrote:
> >Thanks for the info. I decided to send this privately because I know that
>
> you
>
> >will probably get flamed for downloading a binary of this. (by the way it
>
> is
>
> >NOT illegal to have one just distribute them. mplayer has instructions for
> >making .debs on their site so they asked for it. I couldn't care less
> > about
> >
> >the ethics because if you visit their homepage they are a bunch of cranky
> >jerks and I have heard the same about their help forums).
>
> If you had RTFM you would have seen that the problem with downloading a
> binary is that the compile checks to see what type of cpu is on your
> machine and compiles features into the binary. A couple of months ago I
> had downloaded a mplayer deb before I had RTFM and it was slow and cranky.
> Downloaded the source and the various dev files required last night,
> followed the instructions to make a deb package and badabing badaboom a
> mplayer.deb compiled for my AMD K6. This one runs beautifully.
>
> While I agree the devlopers are an arrogant lot, I fail to see how that has
> anything to do with ethics. This page explains the legal and technical
> issue of binaries.
>
> http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/users_against_developers.html#binary
>
> As far as them giving instructions and including the required files for
> making debs, I for one am thankful since it saved me that hassle of trying
> to figure out how to do it myself.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Wednesday 09 January 2002 13:57, Dave W wrote:
> > I too have had problems with other players, and today found mplayer debs
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.mplayer.fr.st/
> >
> > I added the line on this page to my sources.list and apt-got the thing,
> > and then got the codecs and put them, IIRC, under /usr/lib/win32.
> > Amazingly enough, it worked for all of the (few) mpg and avi files on
> > this box. I'll give it a much tougher test tonight at home. But so far
> > I'd have to say this is a very smooth little player. I wish I'd
> > discovered mplayer earlier.
> >
> > dave w
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:14:38 +0100
> >
> > Alexander Skwar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > So sprach �Christian Vogler� am 2002-01-07 um 19:57:12 -0500 :
> > > > and your point is, since there are no debs for mplayer? You've just
> > >
> > > Simply recompile it yourself. Besides the law issue, they also list
> > > technical reasons which make sense to me.
> > >
> > > My point for MPlayer: it works very, very good.
> > >
> > > > made a very good argument in favor of xine. Not to mention the very
> > > > friendly and supportive developer and user communities that don't
> > > > treat their users like idiots.
> > >
> > > Yes, the MPlayer guys are, uhm, "difficult"... :)
> > >
> > > Alexander Skwar
> > > --
> > > How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to
> > > (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber:
> > > [email protected] iso-top.de - Die g�nstige Art an Linux
> > > Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 23 days 4 hours
> > > 14 minutes
> > >
> > > --
> > > The archive is at https://www.libranetlinux.com/archive.html
> > > To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
> > > with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE.
--
The archive is at https://www.libranetlinux.com/archive.html
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE.