Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lack of Manpower May Kill VLC For Mac

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the vlc-generally-rocks dept.

Media 398

plasmacutter writes "The Video Lan dev team has recently come forward with a notice that the number of active developers for the project's MacOS X releases has dropped to zero, prompting a halt in the release schedule. There is now a disturbing possibility that support for Mac will be dropped as of 1.1.0. As the most versatile and user-friendly solution for bridging the video compatibility gap between OS X and windows, this will be a terrible loss for the Mac community. There is still hope, however, if the right volunteers come forward."

cancel ×

398 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This would be a great loss (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464722)

The DVD player that comes with Apple's computers is rather intolerant of scratches, etc., and will report "Skipping damaged area..." then skip ahead a ridiculous amount. VLC will play fine right through the supposedly damaged segment. Losing VLC for the Mac would be terrible. If I knew anything about programming, I'd think about joining this project.

Moot (3, Funny)

zokuga (1452025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464724)

Apple is poised to take over the whole video world in the next year. It'll be windows that needs the fancy VLC to watch Mac-made movies

Re:Moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464758)

sniff, sniff.... I'll have what he's smoking!

VLC is the linsux of media players (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465924)

He's 100% right though. Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work), so taking over the video industry is the next natural step. Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime because it has an order of magnitude superior design, usability, security and testing behind it. You freetards really should get a clue.

Re:Moot (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464840)

Haha, yeah right after GM switches their cars to electric engines.

Re:Moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465004)

care to elaborate? quicktime doesn't even support mpeg2 playback without a pay addon. apple's video playback support is actually fairly shoddy compared with other platforms.

Re:Moot (4, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465186)

Mac has Perian [perian.org] which is FOSS, so while it would be a shame to lose VLC on OS X it won't be the end of support for codecs Apple doesn't support.

Re:Moot (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465460)

Perian is also a little low on developers [cocoaforge.com] , though obviously not as much so as VLC...

Re:Moot (4, Funny)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465112)

So... you're saying next year will be the year of Mac?

That sounds oddly familiar.

Re:Moot (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465606)

On the desktop!

It will be the year of Mac on the Desktop. And about time, too!

Sick (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464730)

There's going to be a million and two volunteers now since this is ./'d

f/p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464732)


use a real os bitches and this would not be an issue

It's very useful (-1, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464746)

Never been a fan of quickslime. There's many videos that just won't work any other way. It's also the only player I use on pc but I believe there are several other worthy options available.

Mplayer OSX Extended (5, Informative)

The J Kid (266953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464748)

Sad to see VLC struggling, but there's always Mplayer OSX Extended [mplayerosx.sttz.ch] for the mac. Get the extra codec pack and it can play anything!

Re:Mplayer OSX Extended (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465076)

That's a good option for playing videos. But what makes VLC VLC, and not just VC, is the LAN support. VLC can pretty easily be set up as a video server as well as a player. You can't do this [engadget.com] with Mplayer.

Re:Mplayer OSX Extended (4, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465446)

Sad to see VLC struggling, but there's always Mplayer OSX Extended [mplayerosx.sttz.ch] for the mac. Get the extra codec pack and it can play anything!

Compare 1080p H.264 matroska playback in vlc to mplayer:

on my macbook pro (exactly a year old at this point) vlc plays it without a stutter, mplayer extended will drop frames like an epileptic. Im sure they both drop frames, but VLC does so much more gracefully, resulting in no noticeable distortion, while mplayer extended makes it obvious (and incredibly annoying) to the viewer. Nothing like watching blade runner final cut and being slowly infuriated by those epic scenes being subjected to massive chop and screen tears.

Re:Mplayer OSX Extended (4, Interesting)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465696)

Compare 1080p H.264 matroska playback in vlc to mplayer:

on my macbook pro (exactly a year old at this point) vlc plays it without a stutter, mplayer extended will drop frames like an epileptic. Im sure they both drop frames, but VLC does so much more gracefully, resulting in no noticeable distortion, while mplayer extended makes it obvious (and incredibly annoying) to the viewer. Nothing like watching blade runner final cut and being slowly infuriated by those epic scenes being subjected to massive chop and screen tears.

The best results I've seen for a sufficiently high bitrate H.264 1080p stream on OS X was by using Media Player Classic Home Cinema running in Windows inside VMware. ~20 fps with tearing and OK audio. Compare to VLC, which was able to play the video at ~24 fps during low motion screens and then just stop updating the picture for a while if decoding couldn't keep up. MPlayer would stop playing altogether if the CPU couldn't keep up. QuickTime + Perian took forever to load the video and then froze when I tried to play it.

In Windows with H.264 hardware decoding disabled the video plays fine. The video also plays fine in Windows (and with lower CPU usage) with hardware decoding enabled, of course. OS X doesn't support hardware H.264 decoding at all on this GPU (Radeon HD 2600). Even if it did, I don't know of any way to use OS X's H.264 hardware decoding support except on files natively supported by QuickTime X.

A different view from a developer (5, Interesting)

rbrito (37104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465604)

(This message may be seen as inflammatory, but I assure you that it is just my opinion and not particularly anybody else---I don't speak for the projects on which I participate).

Hi.

I am not a developer of VLC, but I am part of the LAME team (that MP3 encoder that a good amount of people use). I see similar problems regarding LAME as those described by the VLC team: lack of continuous power and resources.

Some users just magically think that "oh, this program won't exist anymore, so let's use this other one". The sad thing here is that they are shortsighted in the fact that they, by doing nothing (just receiving the programs), are not giving the incentive for the projects.

What about if the proposed alternative dies a few days from now? The amount of alternatives is finite.

Not only that, but the major players out there all share the same codebase: there are "incestuous" (in a good sene of the word) relations with VLC, xine, and mplayer: the all use, to some extent or another (well, in some cases, to the full extent) some common libraries: ffmpeg, libmp3lame, theora, vorbis, dirac, x264 and so on.

Usually, also, the players also send some feedback to the people writing the libraries and, without them, the libraries would not be as good as they are. And the feedback that developers provide is, not infrequently, in form of patches, or constructive suggestions. Some users, like the one above, just cares less and, honestly, where would you just "grab the extra codec" if they all, come, essentially, from the first place?

If you didn't know, perhaps it is a good reminder to put here that people from the VLC project developed the nice libdvdcss library, which benefited xine and mplayer, while people in the other projects have directly or indirectly benefited the others.

I would not like to have the "Linux desktop" mainstream with a "community" with a person that doesn't want a community. For people that are more altruistic (and that show it, instead of just playing in slashdot all day), I am open to a more open talk.

[Gee, from what I wrote the above, it seems like if I only saw Linux---I actually value the other Unix-like operating systems as much].

I guess that what I meant to say here is: "Talk is cheap. Show me the code. Don't wish the death of what you may proudly use and not even know".

Regards, Rogério Brito.

user-friendly? (3, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464780)

Whoever takes the job, please remove the stupid "anything I want to play gets added to a stupid playlist" thing. When I open a video with QuickTime, it plays that video. If I open another video at the same time, it opens up another QuickTime window.

VLC is more like QuickTime (video player) but it currently acts more like iTunes (media library player).

Re:user-friendly? (2, Interesting)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465344)

Strange. on Linux it opens up a new instance every time. Of course the correct behaviour would be just to have an 'enqueue' option in the context menu for that file which you can then set as the default option if you desire

Re:user-friendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465508)

I'd so much rather have QuickTime support playlists than VLC support multiple player instances.

Re:user-friendly? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465916)

Whoever takes the job, please remove the stupid "anything I want to play gets added to a stupid playlist" thing. When I open a video with QuickTime, it plays that video. If I open another video at the same time, it opens up another QuickTime window.

VLC is more like QuickTime (video player) but it currently acts more like iTunes (media library player).

Have you even bothered to open the preferences? It right there in the Interface pane (simple settings view):
Allow only one instance [x]
Enqueue files when in one instance mode[x]
Just uncheck "Allow only one instance".

Anonymous Coward (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464818)

I'm a mac user and I find no reason to use VLC as quicktime can handle everything (I have Perian installed). The current VLC version for mac is not working fine, so I better not use it anyway.

OS X is UNIX (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464828)

Why do they need a special OS X build? Shouldn't it build the same way it does on any UNIX?

Re:OS X is UNIX (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464924)

For some reason, the users expect applications to use the Apple provided video stuff, not X windows or whatever.

Re:OS X is UNIX (4, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464934)

Not exactly... Apple has been slowly squeezing the Carbon (std. C++ lib set) into non-existence, which means you get to do it in Cocoa (that is, Obj-C). IIRC, there's no 64-bit Carbon love in SL, though the 32-bit Carbon libs should still be happily intact.

There's also (IIRC) Grand Central to contend with when you're dinking around with video, and I doubt that you could find an easy parallel for that when porting in from *nix.

Been way the hell too long (something like 4 years) since I've had to do any serious OSX stuff though, so take all of this with a block of salt.

Re:OS X is UNIX (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465030)

I don't see any reason why use of Grand Central would be necessary. After all, the OSX port of VLC predates GC by years!

GC doesn't replace any API. It just simplifies access to multiple processing cores.

-Peter

GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465224)

Mysterious (and ignored) thing is, Adobe won't implement GPU acceleration on Flash beta 10.1 on OS X citing "not stable interface" or "not enough documentation"... Whatever, the reality is, a Mac Mini with NV9400M can play 1080p Flash video with 3% CPU load under Windows Vista/XP/7 but it will choke the CPU (no matter how powerful) on OS X. As far as I understand, GPU accelerated version is either available or soon to be available under x86/Linux too.

Game developers, once interested in GC figured "once you write for GC, it will be OS X only" and they stay away too.

Apple made a big mistake acting like Microsoft. They should have released GC simultaneously on both OS X and Windows, with decent developer support and they could become de-facto standard for multi core/GPU acceleration which game developers are dying for. Of course, it would be really hard but not impossible.

Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues (3, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465374)

You miss my point (2, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465466)

For plugins like Flash and high end commercial games, engine conversion, FreeBSD is irrelevant. What I talk about is something which will run under MS Visual Studio based development environment, whatever game developers/plugin developers use.

Of course, FreeBSD will have GC just like they have launchd but it won't really matter to some game developer or a plugin developer like Adobe.

Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465512)

I don't know what the video acceleration API on OSX is called.

GCD has nothing to do with accelerated video. Preemptively, neither does OpenCL.

The limited GCD documentation I've read looks like it would be amenable to simple approaches for conditional compiling. (I.e. #IFDEFs around the GCD stuff). I can't imagine an API more friendly to sharing code with another multi-processing API. Similarly, I can't imagine how this is more difficult than porting a game from XBox 360 to PS3, or vice-versa.

Again, this is way out of my realm of expertise, but I think that GCD is fundamentally kernel-based. I don't see how Apple can schedule cores on Windows.

-Peter

Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465714)

or maybe they wanted to try and get more game developers to start developing games for mac only... and provided great tools to developers to entice them away from a pc development environment

Re:OS X is UNIX (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464970)

I don't know all the reasons, but the fact that OSX uses a unique graphics system is surely one. (OSX includes X, but it is not the native system.)

-Peter

Re:OS X is UNIX (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465050)

Why do they need a special OS X build? Shouldn't it build the same way it does on any UNIX?

Because Apple's video and GUI APIs are different then what KDE and Gnome use.

You really can only do "write once, compile everywhere" for libraries, console apps, and X. Once you're tying into the look and feel of an operating system and its core IO systems, you need to have platform specific code.

Re:OS X is UNIX (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465174)

Actually I think that VLC has moved to QT for the interface so the GUI should port. The video playback code me be more difficult to deal with but I have looked at the code.
Even if the "Build" is identical and it will never be you still need someone to build and test the software!

Re:OS X is UNIX (2, Insightful)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465352)

Actually I think that VLC has moved to QT for the interface so the GUI should port

I doubt that QT provides the video and audio abstraction needed. VLC does things like directly use the SPDIF, which is pretty low-level.

Re:OS X is UNIX (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465434)

I couldn't resist: http://xkcd.com/676/ [xkcd.com]

Handbrake (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464844)

Let's remember that Handbrake uses VLC for video decoding. No more VLC = no more handbrake.

Really? (5, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465066)

I thought Handbrake uses FFMPEG. Anyway, if Handbrake uses some VLC code then the Handbrake developers will probably continue to maintain that code without necessarily having to maintain VLC as a whole.

Re:Handbrake (1)

Torrance (1599681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465132)

AFAIK, Handbrake only uses VLC's version of libdvdcss to decrypt encrypted DVDs. And this was purely for legal reasons. Handbrake does its own decoding.

Re:Handbrake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465194)

Handbrake uses only the VLC library.
According to TFA, the currently difficulty faced by the VLC developers is in finding someone to support the OS X-specific code, meaning primarily the user interface and display code.
Given that VLC development continues for *NIX, it shouldn't be that difficult for someone (possibly from the Handbrake team) to maintain the OS X version of the VLC library as a relatively straightforward recompile.

Re:Handbrake (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465242)

Handbrake doesn't have to use VLC. I think it was just an easy way to get access to the FFMPEG libraries, to require that VLC be installed. Anyway, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for them to find another way to deal with it.

And I may be wrong, but I think using VLC is a relatively new thing. I don't remember exactly, but back when Handbrake was OSX-only, I think it had the option of using Quicktime to encode movies.

Re:Handbrake (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465510)

I'm willing to pay for VLC/Handbrake to be maintained. Dropping support is dumb before pitching to users to pay to keep someone on the job.

Re:Handbrake (2, Informative)

devjj (956776) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465900)

That's not quite correct. Handbrake requires VLC to rip video directly from a copyright-protected DVD. FFmpeg is built into the Handbrake distribution itself.

Could it be possible that noone cares? (0, Troll)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464846)

Fans of the walled garden may be happy with what they get, while those who are unhappy with that choice may be looking elsewhere for their OS environment, thus VLC for Mac may not be on their radar.

Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? (3, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465006)

What is this walled garden that you speak of?

Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465120)

My guess: The Garden of Eden. The place where Adam and Eve took a bite out of an apple (which is Apple's logo). Note that I don't think their logo is a bite out of an apple for that reason, but that IS the reason why my mac's network name is "The Fall of Man"...

Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465220)

He's being a cryptic Mac-hater. Basically, he's trying to say that nobody that wants to work in OSX will actually want to use VLC, for whatever reason. I think he's implying stupidity.

VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X (4, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465398)

Are you really joking? VLC is the most successful open source project on Mac, forever. It even beats Firefox.

Here is a top sw downloads listing from absolutely general user focused download site: http://www.macupdate.com/popular/ [macupdate.com]

VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.

VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success. Imagine you are a multimedia developer, is there anything more visible and easy to contribute than VLC? Get a CVS pwd, start showing off with your coding capabilities... Really interesting... I suspect some bad treatment to Mac users/Developers going on. BTW, they should look at pure numbers, not some troll/idiot comments from some download sites or blogs. They are currently de facto standard multimedia player on OS X. They should figure this fact if not already.

PS: Not a big VLC fan really while it saves us all the time at TV. I personally use Coreplayer OS X which is really really unpopular and commercial application which does amazing things like playing 720P HD/H264 on G4 1.42 Ghz.

Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465706)

Nope. Mac users care. Mac users did open source.

Let it die (-1, Flamebait)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464882)

Just let Mac VLC go the way of the dodo, it's utter crap.

Even when the stupid thing manages to open a file, half the time it will play back the audio and spew useless error messages into a status window instead of playing video or giving you a dialog box with a clue about how to fix the problem.

It's fickle, unstable, un-Mac-like and inferior to the Windows/Linux versions. Seriously, we'd be better off if someone else picked up the ball and started over from scratch!

Mark parent "troll" (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464994)

VLC plays anything and everything. (Well, OK, not Windows 7 Media Center files...but nothing plays those.) I have no idea if you're really having issues with it but nobody I know does. It would suck serious rocks if VLC were abandoned on the Mac.

Re:Mark parent "troll" (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465062)

I have to agree with the parent. I stopped using VLC in preference for MPlayer. I am always amazed when VLC can't play something but MPlayer can, even though they both use FFMPEG for playback.

Re:Mark parent "troll" (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465748)

MPlayer uses the freshest version of ffmpeg at any given time, since the MPlayer developers develop ffmpeg. VLC lags a bit. But VLC has a significantly better UI, so I stick to that as much as possible (which is pretty much for every video I open, at this point)

Re:Mark parent "troll" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465588)

He's not a troll I have issues too. Just because *your* computer doesn't have issues with it doesn't mean others don't.

Eu Contraire (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465048)

My experience with VLC is that it has handled everything i've thrown at it admirably, with the few exceptions being horribly corrupted beyond recognition.

Mplayer will open and play more, but suffers horrible A/V desynch which, despite months of soliciting and applying arcane fix ideas, has remained persistent.

VLC is currently the only playback solution which can handle HD H.264 matroska without a major malfunction, and additionally has the highest quality video rendering, with more detail, smoother pans, and finer grained video controls than competitors.

Re:Eu Contraire (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465298)

Yeah, VLC isn't perfect, but I much prefer it to MPlayer. Still, I'm not terribly worried. It's not like they're going to come to your house and uninstall whatever version you have now. And their big announcement is surely a way of getting some new developers to stand up and help out. Some new eyes on the code could be a good thing, at any rate. Presumably whoever does take over will have plenty of enthusiasm and a lot will get done.

Re:Eu Contraire (0, Offtopic)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465444)

'Au'. And it's 'voila', whilst we're on; I'm guessing you're mostly responsible for that, too.

Re:Let it die (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465430)

I seriously don't know what you're talking about. I use VLC all the time, and find it impressive how wide a variety of formats it will play without any problems. It plays damned near everything and never crashes. The UI might not be completely Mac-like, but it's not as horrible as some ports.

Overall, I'll be unhappy if VLC development for OSX stops.

It's clearly unholy (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464890)

If this were a worthy project, Father Steve would have told us so.

Oh fuck no (0, Troll)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464892)

I remember when I had a Mac about 2 years ago it was very hard to find something that would burn CD's (yes I know VLC won't do this), play tunes and videos because the developers of all the alternative programs just gave up in the face of the mighty iTunes when that started to gain popularity.

And I hate, hate, hated iTunes, the interface, the then DRMified music store, the way it tried to force you to use a 'library' to store every single song that I only wanted to play once - it was and still is one of those programs like MPLAB [IDE for writing software for PIC] that just for some reason makes me want to dig my way to China with a teaspoon because that would be less stressful than using it.

Its like its authors decided the age-old concept of 'files' was not good enough anymore so their software (poorly) tries to portray the real-life concept of a dusty box filled with records while dumping every song into some random folder with a cryptic filename. But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

Having VLC go from the Mac would mean there is only one real alternative left - mplayer. Now mplayer is a fine piece of software but it's good to have VLC just in case, they both have their own distinct advantages.

Re:Oh fuck no (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465070)

I'm not at all a fan of iTunes, but your post is totally full of false information!

Hard to find something that would burn CDs--sounds like you're talking about an all-in-one program? because it's built into the operating system. It's built into iTunes. The most famous and longlived 3rd party program is Toast. Can install commandline tools as well.

The reason iTunes has a library interface is that...that's the entire point of itunes! If you just want to play a media file once, use Quicktime/vlc/mplayer/Audion/etc. Secondly on this note, iTunes by no means compels you to either consolidate your files under its library or rename your existing files. The directory names are hardly cryptic??

I do, however, agree that losing vlc would be too bad, because I fount it usually worked better than mplayer on the Mac.

Re:Oh fuck no (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465234)

Maybe there is more choice now due to the influx of developers from the iPhone craze but a few years ago there definitely wasn't. Toast is a commercial program so that is out, iTunes is not part of the OS either - you can just delete it when you're sick of it like I did.

I never found these all-in-one programs any good, perhaps because they are all modeled on iTunes. Quicktime is another piece of absolute rubbish that Apple continues to peddle to the masses for some unknown reason. Before my Mac died an untimely death I played *everything* in VLC, if that didn't work I used mplayer but it almost always did. The thing about the cryptic filenames refers to the way it copies them onto iPods - who ever came up with this hair brained scheme and passed it off as being somehow superior to ordinary mass storage preserving the original filenames could do with a good hard kicking.

Re:Oh fuck no (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465200)

Make a burn folder. Drop files in burn folder. Put in blank [CD|DVD]. Hit Burn.

I've had my mac since 2006 and it has always had the ability to burn discs built in.

I'm sorry the world has moved on from storing music in [artist]_[album]-[track#]-[trackname].mp3 but metadata is a wee bit more handy and convenient for sorting music collections and playlists.

Re:Oh fuck no (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465260)

But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

Step 1: Tell iTunes not to manage my library.

Step 2: Drag the 30GB "music" folder from the fileserver onto iTunes and wait for it to index everything.

Step 3: Have easy access to all my music, with not a file moved or renamed.

There are plenty of reasons why you might not like iTunes, but if you're 'leet enough not to like the way it handles your files, then you're 'leet enough to tell it not to.

Re:Oh fuck no (3, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465292)

But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

The feature you speak of can be turned off. Your music can be in one place or as many places as you like (even on removable storage). Most people, however, like the convenience of having all their music in one place which is managed automatically. "Most people" makes for a reasonable default. I also find it odd you categorize apple's naming scheme as "cryptic" given the scheme is artist/album/track, the filenames of which are not renamed as you claim. While my files are in different folders now, all of them retain the same filenames. Also, iTunes store's music no longer has DRM.

Re:Oh fuck no (1)

thetagger (1057066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465676)

But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

Meanwhile, the other 99% of humankind is happy.

Re:Oh fuck no (2, Insightful)

rlthomps-1 (545290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465896)

Its like its authors decided the age-old concept of 'files' was not good enough anymore so their software (poorly) tries to portray the real-life concept of a dusty box filled with records while dumping every song into some random folder with a cryptic filename. But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

I'm sure you're just going to yell "FANBOI FANBOI FANBOI" at me, but seriously, if you want to use 'mv' and 'cp' to manage your files, why did you think a GUI music library program was going to be useful to you at all? Also, if you're so leet, how come you didn't figure out that you can turn off their file management features? Is it because they didn't give you a CLI tool to edit the pref file?

dumb questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464914)

why cant they just have their current linux developers switch to mac? surely there are more people running that?

i thought vlc was open source? isnt part of the power of open source that when crap like this happens the source code is available for ANYONE to continue it?
wont there be like half a dozen different forks of the mac version in a month?

Not disturbing (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464922)

If enough people are missing a feature in 1.1.0 release, someone will take the source and add it. As for any product and platform, development is a matter of supply and demand. It could be that physical media like DVDs is simply on the way out and most Mac users are happy with Quicktime player to watch H.264 torrents.

Re:Not disturbing (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465028)

....except that nearly everything I want to watch is still .avi. If .mp4 takes over, great, but until then I need VLC.

Re:Not disturbing (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465366)

And you'll still be able to use VLC, there just won't be any new versions for a while. Chances are, as grandparent said, somebody else will come along soon enough. I'm glad this article is here because it might generate some interest, and maybe next week we'll get an article saying "VLC for Mac Saved!"

sad so sad (1)

el_jake (22335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30464936)

VLC is by far the best versatile cross platform VIDEO player available to mankind. Very sad if MAC OSX VLC development is discontinued.

Re:sad so sad (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465010)

VLC is by far the best versatile cross platform VIDEO player available to mankind. Very sad if MAC OSX VLC development is discontinued.

I will go further and say that in terms of speed, ease of use, reliability, and elegance VLC may be the best piece of open source software of any kind around.

Re:sad so sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465336)

I recently discovered VLC was the only app I have that can play archived video streams from an esteemed CS dept. It's buggy, and my attempts to have it save the streams to file went through various permutations of achieving failure, but even so it's still quite valuable to me and it's vaguely related to my fields of interest in software. I'm going to look in to volunteering, and I appreciate /. posting this story.

Does VLC really have any advantages over Perian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30464992)

Seriously, with Perian you can pretty much play any video that plays in VLC in QuickTime, which also means that you can integrate it into all the other OS X apps(such as iTunes, iDVD etc). With VLC you are pretty much stuck using the VLC video player, which has a horrendous interface....

Re:Does VLC really have any advantages over Perian (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465566)

Seriously, with Perian you can pretty much play any video that plays in VLC in QuickTime, which also means that you can integrate it into all the other OS X apps(such as iTunes, iDVD etc). With VLC you are pretty much stuck using the VLC video player, which has a horrendous interface....

try opening any large matroska file in quicktime, call me in a few days when it loads under perian. Until the perian team can hack their way around that little problem their plugin will not measure up unfortunately.

It's a great idea, but it's not quite there yet, even though it performs admirably for smaller files and I do have it installed : )

Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465032)

Why use VLC as a player when Perian [perian.org] installs codecs that allow quicktime player (or any quicktime based app) to play back anything VLC will. It's basically ffdshow for mac. I rarely use VLC anymore for that reason. Quicktime player just feels more lightweight as it starts up faster.

Re:Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465094)

I like the Matroska container. It's easy, extensible, and frankly it handles just about anything you can throw into it.

Quicktime+Perian handles Matroska poorly. VLC handles it splendidly. That's why I prefer VLC.

Re:Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465454)

I had the same issues in the past but it seems to work perfectly with the most recent update. Chapter markers even work properly.

Re:Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465616)

I'll check it out. The problem really doesn't present itself until you're using low-speed storage--either something off of a USB drive or on a slow network. In the past, you effectively had to read the entire file before playing it, so large files would take forever to start playing from e.g. an NFS share (though once they started, you could index into them just fine.)

Re:Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465726)

The reading before playing thing? Yeah. That is still there, but I've never tried playing mkv off low speed storage... I suppose it's something the Perian developers should look into.

Re:Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465750)

i need to correct myself. You don't have to read the entire file before playing. You do, however, have to wait for the part of the file you want to play to load sequentially before you attempt to play it. Playing from the beginning has always worked fine for me.

Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465662)

Quicktime + Perian can't solve my "source videos are unusually low in volume, or my laptop speakers suck"... which happens a lot. VLC is nice in that the volume slider goes to 4x.

I also have never had issues with playback in VLC where QT+Perian did any better.

Re:Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465840)

I also have never had issues with playback in VLC where QT+Perian did any better.

I've had some instances of that. On the other hand i've had instances where VLC won't play something properly that Perian will. Good points about the volume, though, and I think it's great that VLC is around. When it's needed, it is nice to have around and I hope they find at least one developer.

Re:Perhaps because of Perian? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465860)

Because I don't like QuickTime, and I don't want to use FrontRow to view a video in the corner of my enormous peni--screen while I do some work or reading. VLC's user interface is significantly better than QuickTime's. And I have four gigabytes of ram. I can afford to keep VLC running at all times.

Perian is a good product, and I was using it with FrontRow until I switched to Boxee.

Mac users got told again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465128)

I am the Steve Jobs. You will only use my Quicktime player. Now suck my iCock.

Macfags face the truth [suregottold.com]

alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465206)

have they considered using horsepower?

OS X needs VLC (1, Informative)

jasonwc (939262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465208)

I think seeing VLC die on the Mac would do much more harm than the death of the Windows version. There is plenty of wonderful video programs that allow you to easily tweak what filters and codecs you use, and pretty much can support any codecs you want. MPC-HC comes to mind as the most versatile. VLC is still useful for formats that you don't use very much - like *.flv, or videos that may not work for whatever reason in another video program.

However, on the Mac, there are far fewer options. A few days ago, I attempted to setup a Windows share on OS X 10.6. Besides the fact that you can't easily add a shortcut to a share (you need to mount it which doesn't work if the machine isn't on) the default player for pretty much all videos files is Quicktime.

I'm pretty sure that everyone can agree that Quicktime is utter crap. It's similar to VLC in that it's pretty much monolithic in that it's supposed to include support for many formats, and it's not easy to add support for new formats. WMP, however, can use any Directshow filter. So can MPC-HC. Why is this a problem? Because Quicktime doesn't support ANYTHING and yet is the default for pretty much EVERYTHING.

- Can't play H.264 above Baseline. That means you can't play H.264 from a Blu-Ray/HD DVD or any (decent) x264 encodes. Pretty much limits you to iTunes downloads
- Can't play Xvid/Divx by default. I was shocked by this. It opens AVI's by default, but it just shows a black screen and won't play
- Doesn't support Matroska (MKV) file format which is now used on all HD videos and and higher-quality SD videos that either use x264, AAC, or AC3/DTS. Most AVI's are plain xvid/mp3.
- No easy way to add Xvid/Divx support. No Xvid codec for OS X that I could find. Installed 3vix (sp?) but it didn't work.

-----

As an aside, I tried setting up OS X to play MKV and AVI files over a Windows share a few days ago. This was my experience:

I couldn't get OS X to use VLC by default. Selecting "open with" VLC ALWAYS only works for that single file, not the file type, despite it saying so. Changing the settings in Quicktime to not play AVI's also did nothing. In the end, I just told my roommate to use the open with VLC option, as I gave up trying to get the Quicktime or the OS to do what I wanted. Couldn't get Quicktime to play XviD AVI's after installing the appropriate codec, and couldn't get OS X to play AVI's with VLC by default.

Re:OS X needs VLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465422)

http://perian.org/#detail

Re:OS X needs VLC (1)

jasonwc (939262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465582)

Thanks. I'm not a Mac user. I did do some google searching for codecs but didn't come across that. I'll try it.

Re:OS X needs VLC (1)

nneonneo (911150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465872)

Have you tried the "apply to all files of this type" in the Get Info window? AFAIK this is how you re-associate a file extension to a new program.

As for Quicktime's formats, try Perian [perian.org] : it is a codec pack for QuickTime (a la Directshow) which integrates ffmpeg, MKV, and a few other formats.

Job Market... (1)

ghostis (165022) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465276)

I suspect they will find more development help when the job market improves (hopefully soon)... :-/

Mac people don't want VLC (-1, Troll)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465310)

You can't use VLC with a turtle-neck sweater and maintain that pretentious twat aura.

I'll help! (5, Informative)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465594)

I wanted to respond directly to the person who put this post up, but I don't want to register for yet another forum.

I'll gladly help develop for the project. My knowledge in video and audio processing is very weak (I took a class on it, but I didn't really put too much work into it), but my skills in C and C++ are pretty good (but not expert). I'm also pretty well-versed in Java, though it's been a while since I needed to whip it out. Finally, I'm slowly, but surely, learning Objective-C.

Please e-mail me at the address listed here. I don't want to see this die! I just migrated over to OS X and find this app extremely helpful, especially from my use of it in Windows.

Re:I'll help! (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465624)

Sorry to respond to my own post, but if you feel compelled to help too, reply to this! It'd be pretty cool to get a team going. -mrc

Developers Developers Developers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465614)

It turns out they are probably tired of Apple being restrictive about what can and cannot be done.

More Macs are switching to PC, w00t.

Manpower? (-1, Flamebait)

greyline (1052440) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465812)

Manpower...really? That's such a sexist term, are there no female developers? Sure there are. People power or human power is a much more gender-neutral term.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>