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!

Quicktime Under Linux With MPlayer

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the wouldn't-it-be-nice dept.

News 267

Sark writes: "The latest version of the controversial MPlayer program for Linux supports Quicktime .mov files with the latest codecs. Apart from the closed source program Crossover, this is the first open source program that seems to work. Check out the Mplayer homepage for more info." According to formats page, Sorenson Quicktime is still not gonna happen any time soon.

cancel ×

267 comments

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

No sorrenson? =( (1)

fall0ut456 (454055) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751735)

Argg, sorrenson is the one codec that we all really want and still no opensource way to use it... Oh well, atleast we have crossover.

egg troll, are you out there? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751745)

When can we meet up? I have the Pampers that we wanted.

love,

diaper troll

Re:egg troll, are you out there? (-1)

egg troll (515396) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752361)

Hey I'm here and ready for you to powder my soft, pink bum before you wrap me in a diaper. Mmmmm.....

Stephen King, author, dead at 55 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751746)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home Christmas morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon. Sorry to have such bad news this holiday season.

huh? (2, Interesting)

ankit (70020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751755)

huh!?
Whats the point?

[shamelessly lifted from a post in a different article]
Quicktime is a wrapper format for a number of codecs, just like AVI. An actual Quicktime file is almost invariably encoded in the Sorenson file format, which is is exclusively licensed to Apple. MPlayer can probably never play this format!

quicktime sucks anyway (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751757)

yes it does

Xanim Supports Quicktime (5, Informative)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751759)

Xanim's supported Quicktime .mov files forever, just not the Sorensen codec. Of course, many of Xanim's modules don't have source code available either, due to IP issues. Also, its mpeg capabilities are questionable at best. Since I got the DSL line in, I usually just look for mpegs anyway and play them with gtv or plaympeg.

Re:Xanim Supports Quicktime (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751833)

I'd be happy if VLC would learn to use XANIM's proprietary drivers to play video formats it doesn't know about.

The histroy of Quicktime and Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751760)

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

+MONDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+MONDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

+TUESDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+TUESDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

+WEDNESDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+WEDNESDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

+THURSDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+THURSDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

+FRIDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+FRIDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

+SATURDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+SATURDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

+SUNDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: Today is the Lord's day.
+SUNDAY AFTERNOON+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

Re:The histroy of Quicktime and Linux (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751850)

Hey, I was looking for you at this comment [slashdot.org] . Oh well, better late than never.

MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (4, Informative)

CDWert (450988) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751769)

I have to say MPlayer and the folks working on it have done a great job, It is really nice stuff, although I think the project would benifift from a refined build process, building it with all the dependencies can be a bit of fun the first time around, divx, dvd, blah blah blah. I dont know if there is a simpole method of doing this with all the complie options.

I really love the GCC 2.96 RedHat warning, if you havent built it yet, HEED that warning.

Is there no chance the RIAA et al can shut this down being out of hungary? I hope not its becoming a wonderful piece of software.

Congrats to the guys making MPlayer happen !!

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (-1, Offtopic)

RangerBob (30028) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751806)

Oh please, enough with the fear mongering about 2.96. Yeah, it caused problems in the beginning, but there have been updates you know. Everything I do is in C++, and I've not had a single issue with 2.96. We do things from simple file conversions programs to large distributed processing systems, and we have ZERO difficulties. And yes, this includes anything from the STL to simple inheritance. We also build the kernel on the cluster each time it comes out with 2.96 and have ZERO problems there.

One of the biggest problems you'll find with 2.96/3.0+ is that a lot of crap C++ code won't build anymore. There was also code that quit building between 2.72 and when the egcs group decided to make a more standards compliant compiler. But, surely it's not due to crap code or anything. If people want things to build right, read the standards and UNDERSTAND them. If you don't really know what you're doing when you write code, then don't complain when a compiler tells you that you're wrong. And yes, people can point to Bugzilla reports that show there are problems, but I can also point to how those problems have been fixed and point to a ton of Usenet/Bugzilla reports that were due to user error and not the compiler. Facts are great things, especially when checked :)

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (1)

CDWert (450988) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751824)

Have you built MPlayer , RECENTLY with ALL the options under 2.96 (All updated) ????

I have TWICE 2 DIFFERENT Machines, Its SCREWY as hell, SCREWEY is a technical term that means just plain act strange, crashed, skitters, all kinds of wierdness, on occasion, sometimes its fine,

I built it with 3... and guess what NO PROBLEMS that I had with the RH 2.96 on the SAME MACHINE.

Work great with one, work schitzy with the one they warn you about .....hmmmm.......

Have you even read the MPlayer warning ?

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (1)

fader (107759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751848)

Have you built MPlayer , RECENTLY with ALL the options under 2.96 (All updated) ????

Yup. Works like a charm, thanks. On two different machines.

BTW, when it gives that asinine prompt to type "gcc 2.96 is broken" or whatever, you can type "gcc 2.96 works just fine and the mplayer developers don't have a clue what they're talking about" and it'll go through. Makes me feel a bit better when building it :)

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752014)

Same thing goes with nuvplayer. The guy who wrote it integrated some "optimized" MMX code which doesn't work on AMD boxes anymore; gcc-2.96 has NOTHING to do with it. Granted, 2.96 has its issues but blaming the compiler for "not being able to compile MMX correctly" is ridiculous when the code being compiled is utterly broken!

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (1)

RangerBob (30028) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751860)

Yeap, I build mplayer all the time with 2.96 and haven't had any problems with it. Build it on both RedHat and Mandrake boxes. I also use it all the time to play things under Linux, including playing (S)VCD's and DVD's. Then again, I build from cvs and not the releases so that might explain things also. And yeah, I read it and ignore it cause they're full of it. Sorry, but I haven't had problems with 2.96 that you're experiencing.

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752345)

I think, I may see what the problem for ME with 2.96 is , a person down in this thread states theres some MMX code incompatible with AMD , any of this ring a bell, both systems are Athlons, could this be the cause of the abbohrent behavior on my machines with RH 2.96 VS gcc3 ? Or are all you on Atholns too ?

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (3, Insightful)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752197)

hmmm, I compiled 0.50 some weeks ago with gcc 2.96 (I think the warning is a bit overblown, having to do a --ignore-gcc-whatever *and* having to type 'yeah, gcc 2.96 sucks' or something seems a bit redundant) and it's been working just fine...

While I do not doubt that gcc 2.96 has bugs, in my experience it's not worse than most gcc versions I used during the years, and much better than quite some of them, especially in C++.

I also did a bit of google-ing about this warning in mplayer, and AFAIK some people were a bit angry that 2.96 has been singled out (probably just because it's a RH release) I wonder if the reasons for so prominently warning people about 2.96 are at least in part political...

Re: RIAA/MPAA shutting this down, eh? (1)

MrXZY (113482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752214)

<rant&gt

Uhmm... While I'm trying not to troll here, why on earth would the RIAA/[MPPA] try and shut this down? Does it allow piracy? No. (Well, I suppose you could use quicktime for pirated films, but I can't think why you'd want to)

Does it infringe anyone's intellectual property? Not as far as I can tell, mplayer most of it's codec modules as seperate .dlls. (I suppose if apple has a patent on the quicktime format as a whole, they could come after mplayer, but that seems unlikely, and it certainly would'nt involve the RIAA/MPAA).

I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen someone on slashdot make some misinformed comment about the RIAA/MPAA/DMCA, they seem to be considered as the generic bad guys, who will spoil ALL your fun, even if it's not in any way related to them.

</rant&gt

RIAA break your glowstick, RIAA eat your candy.

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752353)

I really love the GCC 2.96 RedHat warning

As did I. I love how they were using profanity more than Jay and Silent Bob, and making punchy comments about RH and their business intrest. Like they said, "It compiles bash on a s390!" Sheesh, RH did get their compiler stuff straightened out, and they will act in their best business intrest, which isn't making x geek happy, but focusing on the profits that can be made by migrating companies to RH.

Re:MPlayer + Quicktime = schweeetttt (1)

_johnnyc (111627) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752356)

No need to HEED the gcc 2.96 warning. --disable-gcc-checking will take care of that.
It works fine for me on Redhat 7.1 with gcc-2.96-85. Really, they just have a problem with Redhat period, and I don't think they think much of anyone using Redhat linux. I wonder what real consequences derive from using this version of gcc. I've had no problems with mplayer.

It's a great program once its up and running, though. Best video playback on linux.

In order for MPlayer to succeed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751770)


It will need a simple interface, on a simple computer.

Anyway, here is the simplest computer around, and the interface is perfect because we are all born with it - the interface is human DRIVE. The computer works like this: I stick my pee sprout in your mom's poop chute for 1, and I stick it in her pee hole for 0.

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

Sometimes I stick it in her mouth, but that is for parity.

Sometimes complex operations can take a long time to complete, but that's okay! We're looking for simplicity here, not speed. And waiting for this interface isn't that bad.

This simple computer is very susceptable to visuses. In fact, it comes pre-loaded with several.

For review:

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

This computer also fits into Microsoft's .Net strategy - namely, pay per use. It costs $10 per computation, or 15 minutes, whichever comes first.

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

oh no (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751771)

I mounted on top of her and started thrusting my hips uncontrollaby. Everything was fine, until I realized we were wearing the same brand and size of diapers. Pampers size 6. Oh well, she was the sexiest 4 year old ever.

Re:oh no (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751861)

Christ... Katz, you are a sick, sick man.

Re:oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751931)

LOL
I'm just kidding, i would never do that.
eww. but diapers do look nice on a nice young high school student (i'm still in high school)

Don't Bitch at MPlayer; Blame Apple! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751773)

It is APPLE's fault that only Quicktime(tm)(c)(r) can play Sorenson codec files. They are keeping it totally proprietary in a petty attempt to be relevant. Please please petition Apple to release the specs and then we will write a player for Linux!

Re:Don't Bitch at MPlayer; Blame Apple! (4, Interesting)

gabebear (251933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751853)

Apple has released the specs for almost every aspect of the Quicktime (.mov) standard. They rarely write their own codecs though.

The Sorenson codec is owned by Sorenson [sorenson.com] and Apple pays for it. If you want to get a legal player for a non-Win/Mac platform someone will either have to
1. reverse engineer the codec(legally questionable and hard)
2. write a wrapper that uses another OSs Code (crossover does this)
3. legally licence the code and release a player (anyone?)
4. actually get sorsen to let people have their source(or detailed specs) somehow.

the best thing to do is just start using a codec that already lets people have their source and is on par with the best VP3 [vp3.com]

Re:Don't Bitch at MPlayer; Blame Apple! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752219)

> 4. actually get sorsen to let people have
> their source(or detailed specs) somehow.

...which conveniently ignores the fact that Apple remains the sole exclusive licensee of the "spec" in question. Apple is firmly in control of this situation, regardless of what excuses might be made for them.

Re:Don't Bitch at MPlayer; Blame Apple! (1)

kill-1 (36256) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752279)

5. Have a widespread linux video player with a decent codec plugin architecture and hope that Sorenson/Apple write a binary only plugin.

Re:Don't Bitch at MPlayer; Blame Apple! (2)

frankie (91710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752292)

3. legally licence the code and release a player (anyone?)
4. actually get sorsen to let people


These two are actually the same problem: Apple pays Sorenson for an exclusive license to the codec. If it isn't Quicktime, it can't use Sorenson.

Thus, the options are either convince Apple to release Quicktime for *nix (Quicktime for OS X runs way up in the Cocoa/Aqua layers, not down in BSD, so it doesn't count), or convince content producers to use another codec (MPEG4, some day).

I love Huggies too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751778)

I wore a Huggies overnight, and I woke up wet, and it felt so good that I started masturbating as soon as I woke up. I love Huggies.

Controversial? (4, Insightful)

KingKire64 (321470) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751781)

Why r these guys controversal? I read up on their site, they are trying to do the best they can to make a good movie app for linux... should they not include features b/c they are not fully opensource?? Dont let you politics about open/closed source keep linux out of the video world.

Re:Controversial? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751870)

Read the FAQ on there site. They do not come across as the most helpful people on the planet...

Re:Controversial? (1)

moyix (412254) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752223)

Some of the questions in the FAQ do come across as a bit testy, yes. However, this is understandable, because the person who wrote it (Gabucino) is the one who gets ALL the newbie questions. So, yes, he can get annoyed ;) However, everyone I've ever talked to on the mailing list is consistently friendly and helpful.

The only reason that anyone could really call MPlayer controversial is because they had some lisencing issues a while back, because of incompatible lisences in (if I remember right) the OpenDivX portion of the program.

Re:Controversial? (1)

SLi (132609) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752017)

Politics? Licensing is licensing, not politics. Using other people's code released under the GPL in a way which violates GPL is no more politics than pirating the latest Microsoft operating system is.

Apple is bad. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751782)

When Apple finally decides to get its head out of the sand and build a Linux version of Quicktime then I'll stop bad mouthing them about stealing BSD because they couldn't write a good OS if they fell over it.

Poll Questions (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751783)

1) What are you going to eat for dinner?
2) KwaanzaBot?
3) Would you rather wear Pampers or Luvs?
4) What is your favorite irc server?
5) How does one get over being sick (sore throat)?

Re:Poll Questions (-1)

The Turbinator (544647) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751927)

Pampers all the way, baby!

Xanim has done this for a while... (5, Informative)

null_session (137073) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751784)

'Taco's real up on things, can't you tell? I've been playing .mov files (not the sorenson codec) for quite a while now using xanim. Try http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/home.html

Come again? (1)

skajohan (29019) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751786)

Apart from the closed source program Crossover, this is the first open source program that seems to work. (My emph. No further comment.)

Re:Come again? (1)

greenrd (47933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751955)

Crossover is in fact partially closed source, but it's based on wine which is open source. And in fact all the closed-source bit provides (so I've heard) is an easy configurator - it should be possible to play Sorenson QuickTime movies on Linux using wine already, without bothering to buy crossover.

Of course MPlayer is not the "first open source program that seems to work" with Quicktime, that's completely laughable nonsense, as others have pointed out.

Where are the Debian packages? (3, Interesting)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751788)

You know, if Linux video software would come as Debian packages, I would be really happy. Currently, if I want anything with avifile or something, I need to compile it myself - and I don't want to mess with the source because avifile API isn't exactly solid yet and source that compiled yesterday doesn't work today. Linux video support Isn't Here, dammit.

The mplayer author seems to be aware of the Marillat's unofficial .debs... and now whines that people are violating his "thou shalt not distribute Binaries" lisence.

I don't want to compile the package myself. I want binaries.

Source-only distribution is fine, as long as you let somebody make the pre-built binaries available so that we lazy bastards can use the program. I know I can compile mplayer if I'm positively motivated, but I know my mother couldn't.

This is why I'm considering using VideoLanClient instead of mplayer - at least it's under GPL and I'm able to get "official" Debian packages for it.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1, Troll)

Skirwan (244615) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751803)

I don't want to compile the package myself. I want binaries.
Then why on earth are you running Linux?!

--
Mod me down

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751832)

Then why on earth are you running Linux?!

Obviously you've never built mplayer... or used Slackware 3.2 where I needed to build everything interesting from source if I didn't want to use year-old stuff. You kids have Stow to manage /usr/local, back in the day we needed to spend a day to nuke something installed to /usr/local - and we liked it! =)

You know, the fact that I can just say "apt-get install whatever" to get my favorite software is a Good Thing. Don't get me wrong - I just wished to say that I hate duplicate work, installing pre-alpha-grade development libraries, and working with package source dependencies.

Zillions of people out there download, build and install mplayer from source - while downloading prebuilt binaries would be much nicer and more convinient for everyone.

I know, Real Men build the whole system from scratch. Those people are real artists. Now, would you please get me a distribution aimed for mortals?

Where are the binary packages? (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752343)

Even if someone built binary packages, Debian would never distribute them. OpenDivX is open-source, but it is not under a GPL-compatible license. That means distributing a product that has linked OpenDivX to GPL code (like the rest of Mplayer) is a violation of the GPL.

Also, Mplayer configures itself based on what libraries you have installed on your system (ffmpeg, OpenDivX, SDL, win32 codecs, etc). Including all these libraries would be redundant, including none would build an Mplayer that can't play movies ( which would be worthless). This could be overcome if Mplayer built video decoders as plugins that could be loaded at run-time, but it doesn't.

Lastly, all the decoding and video output is optimized at compile time for MMX, 3D-now, SSE or whatever CPU-specific speedups it detects. If the build host has an Intel chip and you have an AMD, the player would crash and burn on your machine. This could probably be overcome by adding CPU-detection code, but including a different version of every decoder for every CPU would add unnecessary bloat.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (2, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751807)

Mplayer is using some libraries whose licence forbids binary distribution. They are working on replacing these, but until then you won't have binaries of the thing.

/Janne

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

SLi (132609) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752005)

The funny thing being that the license in the GPL'd software they're using in MPlayer forbids forbidding binary distribution.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (5, Informative)

ankit (70020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751813)

There are a few reasons behind that. Firstly, MPlayer has many options with regard to what kind of output it should use. These are bese selected during compilation.
Secondly, to be really useful, MPlayer requires several dlls, and codecs. These codecs either come from the windows dlls, or from closed source projects like the DivX(tm) MPEG-4 Codec.
Distribution of these is prevented by their license. There are just links to them on the mplayer page. It is best if you compile mplayer yourself.

Also, as a christmas gift, teach your mother the "./configure; make; make install" trick ;)

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (3, Informative)

dhamsaic (410174) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751918)

try

./configure && make && make install

next time. that way, if configure dies, make doesn't try to run. and if make dies, make install doesn't try to run. you'll be happier.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

moyix (412254) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752237)

Hell, if you're feeling saucy, you might even teach her how to make perfect debian packages out of the MPlayer source. It's really very easy, especially since they've been kind enough to provide the scripts...

fakeroot debian/rules binary

One command. Yes, it really is that simple

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

KingKire64 (321470) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751843)

If you read the FAQ file it tells you that at this point making banaries if legal would be almost impossible. During compile gcc checks out all kinds of things on your machine processor type what proccessor extensions are supported etc. With out these comppile time options checked the program will crash. And yes they could keep 30 different compiled binarys on the site but that would be just a pain in the ass. And BTW they are looking for a programmer to help with making this a runtime issue instead of a compile time issue, but right now the compile time option saves alot of processor overhead during runtime.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751909)

apt-get install aviplay.

mplayer is illegal to use in binary form, and will likely always be that because of the stupidity of it's authors.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

m_ilya (311437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751978)

There exist unoffical debian packages of mplayer. This is from my /etc/apt/sources.list:

deb http://marillat.free.fr/ stable main

Xine (3, Informative)

~-zman-~ (99011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751998)

There are packages for xine in unstable and you can play all kinds of formats. There is a list here:

xine.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752004)

The MPLAYER dudes are working on it so that it would be possible to release it as binaries also. If I understood it correctly, the main reason why it is better to compile it yourself is the KICK-ASS optimization! You get the best performance if you compile the source by yourself. Shouldn't be too hard - "/compile; make; make install" pretty much does the job. MPLAYER is amazing peace of software! The speed is absolutely amazing - you should really check it out! Micro$hit's .ASF format is also supported.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752088)

From the download page:

Precompiled packages
It has no sense to make binary packages of mplayer now, because most of options are autodetected or configured during compilation. It's forbidden to distribute binary packages of MPlayer. See the documentation about this!

This is insane. First of all, they have packed the files in bz2 instead of gzipped tarballs. Its almost as if they dont want anyone to run the software.

If they need to detect options, they should do this from inside an installer and not during complation.

People who write Linux software have a fundamental misunderstanding of when things shoud be done. Compiling software is something that developers do. People who run software do not compile their own software, they run installers.

How can they get lots of feedback for squashing bugs if the number of installed users is restricted by these adolescent "strategies" like non standard compression, and forbidding the distribuition of binaries?

What is the ultimate aim of these people? No one is going to buy this player comercially, since there are other players for free, so why the restrictions? Why the barriers to spreading thier software far and wide?

This is a textbook case of how not to write, package and distribute software, and everyone who writes software for linux should take note.

What is even more incomprehensible, is that they put up a load of tantalizing screenshots of software that they dont want you to use!

Now how weird is that

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

edbarrett (150317) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752158)

From the documentation:
6.1. Debian packaging


To build the package, get the cvs version, or .tgz and uncompress it, and cd into programs directory:

cd main
fakeroot debian/rules binary
If your machine is fast enough to view AVIs without skipping, it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to compile a .deb.

Re:Where are the Debian packages? (1)

The Madpostal Worker (122489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752268)

apt-cache search mplayer
mplayer - The Ultimate Movie Player

apt-cache show mplayer
Package: mplayer
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: misc
Installed-Size: 2540
Maintainer: Dariush Pietrzak
Version: 0.50-1
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0), libgtk1.2 (>= 1.2.10-2.1), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20010310-1), libpng2 (>= 1.0.12), libsdl1.2debian, libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 (>= 1:2.95.4-0.010810), xlibs (>> 4.1.0), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3), debconf, libconfhelper-perl
Description: The Ultimate Movie Player
MPlayer is a movie player for Un*x. It plays most MPEG, AVI and ASF files,
supported by many native and Win32 DLL codecs. You can watch VCD, DVD and even
DivX movies with MPlayer.
.
MPlayer supports a wide range of output drivers: X11, Xv, DGA, OpenGL,
SVGAlib, fbdev, AAlib, GGI, SDL . You can use SDL and thus all the SDL
drivers. Same goes for GGI.
There are some low-level card-specific drivers (e.g. Matrox). Most of the
drivers support either software or hardware scaling, so you can enjoy
movies in full screen mode.
.Package: mplayer
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: misc
Installed-Size: 2540
Maintainer: Dariush Pietrzak
Version: 0.50-1
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0), libgtk1.2 (>= 1.2.10-2.1), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20010310-1), libpng2 (>= 1.0.12), libsdl1.2debian, libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 (>= 1:2.95.4-0.010810), xlibs (>> 4.1.0), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3), debconf, libconfhelper-perl
Description: The Ultimate Movie Player
MPlayer is a movie player for Un*x. It plays most MPEG, AVI and ASF files,
supported by many native and Win32 DLL codecs. You can watch VCD, DVD and even
DivX movies with MPlayer.
.
MPlayer supports a wide range of output drivers: X11, Xv, DGA, OpenGL,
SVGAlib, fbdev, AAlib, GGI, SDL . You can use SDL and thus all the SDL
drivers. Same goes for GGI.
There are some low-level card-specific drivers (e.g. Matrox). Most of the
drivers support either software or hardware scaling, so you can enjoy
movies in full screen mode.
.
MPlayer has nice, big antialiased shaded subtitles (7 supported types!)
with Hungarian, English, Cyrillic, Czech and Korean fonts, and OSD.

It works for me atleast. Im using unstable.
MPlayer has nice, big antialiased shaded subtitles (7 supported types!)
with Hungarian, English, Cyrillic, Czech and Korean fonts, and OSD.

Controversial? (2, Interesting)

leereyno (32197) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751793)

What exactly is supposed to be so controversial about this program? I've been using it for a month and a half now and I think it is great. The addition of quicktime support means fewer reboots into windows just to watch some silly movie or another. As for the sorenson business, I'd like to think that eventually MPEG-4 (DiVX) will overtake whatever hold this compression codec has. Open standards tend to win out over proprietary ones, even when the proprietary one is technically superior. Just look at what happened with Betamax vs. VHS.

Lee

Re:Controversial? (4, Informative)

selmer (37218) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751809)

One of the things that's controversial about the mplayer people is their approach to support. Read this linuxworld article [linuxworld.com] if you want to know all about it.

The short version:"They're a bunch of arrogant elitist bastards". (The article's opinion, I've never tried to install mplayer).

Re:Controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751883)

They might be arrogant elitist bastards, but they sure deliver!

And in my opinion, that is all that matters. (Actually, I kind of dig their attitude.)

Re:Controversial? (-1, Troll)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751956)

Actually, I kind of dig their attitude.

I wish you hadn't posted anonymously so I could make sure you never ever worked for any company I ever had anything to do with. That's exactly the kind of attitude that nobody needs. From reading the LinuxWorld article, they seem like utter jerks, plain and simple. That they happen to produce good code is like saying the fascists made the trains run on time.

Re:Controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752018)

You should wish you had posted anonymously, now I can make sure you never ever work for any company I ever had anything to do with. That's exactly the kind of attitude that nobody needs. If you are making a judgement on them based on one article in a magazine, you are an utter jerk, plain and simple. The fact that you are quick to judgement after reading one article about them is like saying the fascists were right about their judgements of the Slavs and Jews after hearing one Hitler speech.

Re:Controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752039)

Haha. I love it when someone throws the same argument right back at the person who made it. This guy really showed his parent poster, who is the boss!

Re:Controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752299)

Ding! Godwin's Law is in effect. You lose.


With any luck, the Mplayer people will either find and read some basic etiquette references or find some people who have that can act as a buffer between them and the civilized world.

Re:Controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752364)

That they happen to produce good code is like saying the fascists made the trains run on time.

Are you trying to say they didn't?

~~~

Re:Controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752368)

That's exactly the kind of attitude that nobody needs.
Yeah, God-forbid a development team releases code early and often so others can test it and show slight irritation but still willingness to answer questions when people who have no idea what they're doing get involved.

Would I be right in suggesting your position is that no code should be released until version 1.0, and the developers should just ignore the technically challenged, or else devote all their resources to supporting them?

Re:Controversial? (2)

be-fan (61476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751901)

They pretty much are. For example, they constantly remind you (in less than polite ways) that GCC 2.96 is unsupported. Then, they discourage people from distributing binaries so people will be forced to compile it themselves.

Re:Controversial? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751942)

Given it's still beta software, the author's problems strike me as a little over-critical, especially considering he was installing from CVS. It strikes me as a tad unfair to criticise developers expecting people testing code that isn't even at the RC stage to be reasonably familiar with Linux and setting up the software.

And his criticisms of lack of documentation seem to me to be unjustified. There's an excellent comprehensive manual [mplayerhq.hu] which is available in four different languages and covers virtually every aspect of the system.

MPlayer is a remarkable package, all kudos to its developers who deserve a great deal of credit for what they've achieved so far.

Re:Controversial? (1)

zdzichu (100333) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752037)

I must disagree. Mplayer is great. All the features needed, even more. Recording from TV never was so easy as now, with mencoder. Mplayer really shines with it documentation. Every aspect of possible use is explained, with examples. Mplayer does not lack of 'on-line help'. Everytime something goes bad, tips appear: like 'use -idx to force index creation', '-framedrop may help' and so on. The zilions of configuration options made mplayer suitable for any use. I was able to bring video in sync with audio with mplayer. It just easy as reading docs and using few runtime switches.
And the attitude. Well, they have correct attitude. Instead of writing thousand times the same things, they wrote they once, and the are giving RTFM tips for everyone. That's is good! Documentation is for reading.
If you have problem - look ina FAQ, read documentation, grep documentation. You will find answer. And, damn, the source is readable. I solved one of my problem with reading source.
Mplayer is really great project (although iconv from cp1250 to latin2 still doesn't work :).

I think the linuxworld guy expected far too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752115)

I just finished reading that linuxworld article and I have a few thoughts.

1 - The MPlayer developers' apparently find it irresponsible for companies like Redhat to include gcc 2.96 (or whatever it is). By making it difficult for their users to compile MPlayer with this version of gcc, they are using their power and influence (indirectly) to twist Redhat's arm into changing its behavior. I actually approve of this behavior (causing change by writing code) and I applaud MPlayer devs' courage to do this in the face of the heat they will get from people like Joe Barr.
As for Joe Barr, he seems to be exhibiting the typical Microsoft attitude of "if enough people use it, everyone should support it." He says that gcc 2.96 must be supported because it comes installed by default on his Mandrake box. That's like a Windows user telling me that my project has to work perfectly on Windows XP or that it has to work perfectly on an ATI card (since they are so popular). Think about it. Should developers allow popularity to dictate what they do? My answer is no. Do what you think is right, don't allow the dominant software to control your actions. Joe Barr's argument that gcc 2.96 should be embraced because it is installed by default on distribution only makes sense if the devs are in the business of pleasing customers. But as Joe has obviously forgotten, these devs don't have customers. And they probably don't care about annoying potential users either.. and why should they?

2 - Regarding the devs' inflammatory comments in their FAQ ... well, to put it bluntly, I often feel exactly the same way that they do when people ask me incessant questions. The only difference is I force myself not to put my true feelings in the FAQ. Devs are humans and they lose patience and get annoyed. Let's face it, should they really be responsible for answering questions about installing shared libraries when it is a more general linux issue and not something specific to MPlayer? In fact, on a more broader scope, should they really be responsible for answering anyone's questions at all? If you said yes, then I invite you to think about why you said yes. Probably the only reason you can come up with is because "If they are mean to their users, than their users will leave and they won't have any users anymore." Fair enough.. but do the MPlayer devs really care if anyone uses their stuff? They probably don't frankly. Any dev who works on free software for the sake of providing a quality product for Mr. Newbie quickly becomes depressed and stops working on the project. Only those devs who work on free software for their own amusement, interest, needs, etc. are those who can endure for long periods of time. The bottom line is, that users of free software often create more headaches for developers of free software than benefits. If that statement shocks you, I'd encourage you to think about it for a while ...

Why bother with Quicktime? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751796)

Mpeg is greated than all. Forget Quicktime. It's a lame proprietary and non-friendly format. Hell, i'd rather use AVI over Quicktime. Sorry if this comes off as a troll, but it's true, and im sick of seeing people complain about it. Just use something BETTER like MPEG.

Because... (3, Insightful)

ChaoticCoyote (195677) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751862)

...sometimes, you don't have a choice. I need to review movies I didn't create; while I agree that MPEG is "better" than QT, my opinion doesn't matter when someone sends me a QT video.

Linux may be "superior" to Windows in one or more ways -- but what matters is being able to get the job done. And if I can't view a client's QT movie under Linux, Linus doesn't get the job done. And that's why it's important that Linux support QT...

Re:Because... (1, Funny)

realkiwi (23584) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752212)

That's why I have a Mac running Mac OS X...

Cheers

Re:Why bother with Quicktime? (2, Funny)

fader (107759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751865)

Just use something BETTER like MPEG.

What a great idea! Why didn't I think of that? Next time I see some movie online that I'd like to watch, I'll just play it in my MPEG player regardless of how it was encoded by someone else!

Re:Why bother with Quicktime? (3, Interesting)

frankie (91710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751911)

Remember that there are two key components to a movie player -- the file format and the video codec. When the MPEG4 codec is finalized, the Quicktime format (and maybe also WiMP) will support it. With a little luck the Sorenson problem will become irrelevant at that point.

There are several reasons the Quicktime format can be more useful than straight MPEG. One of the best (but sadly underused) features is text tracks [google.com] , which allows subtitles, descriptors for the disabled, etc. Another is the ability to overlay static sprites (for example, TV channel logos) onto the video layer. This kind of stuff can improve image quality and save bandwidth at the same time.

Re:Why bother with Quicktime? (1)

kill-1 (36256) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752295)

Another is the ability to overlay static sprites (for example, TV channel logos) onto the video layer. This kind of stuff can improve image quality and save bandwidth at the same time.

And can easily be removed ;)

Re:Why bother with Quicktime? (1)

supaphinn (242720) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752153)

because you CAN

I demand a moderater reply to this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751800)

How exactly is the subject of diapers "Troll" instead of "Offtopic". I demand an answer to this, moderater! Diapers may seem unusual to you, but look, there's a whole lot of people into diapers [dpf.com] like me. I am not a troll. Please tell, how am I a troll?

This is news? (5, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751805)

It would be news if it supported Sorenson at all. We already have a number of applications to chose from that will play non-Sorenson quicktime back, xanim being the first that I ever knew of. Quicktime for Linux project has all sorts of stuff that is non-Sorenson. Sorenson playback has always been the gotcha that matters.

The only thing I can see is if they can use the Windows binary code to decode the Sorenson without the huge performance hit of running the entire player within a Wine context, and having the added benefit of XVideo availability for Sorenson playback. But it doesn't look like this will be the case.

More noteworthy is the VIVO support and xanim support, the VIVO support is a first (AFAIK) under linux natively, and the xanim support really helps bridge the gap between new and old-school media playback, xanim gets a lot of those files that have been overlooked in the "new wave" of media players for linux...

Also, another nit-pick, the crossover plugin, as such is not so much a player, but a nicely done wine modification within which the Windows Quicktime player runs... You can use the latest Wine CVS repository in much the same way (outside a browser at least).

The Slashdot troll song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751841)

Woke up quick, at about eight I just couldn't wait to masturbate I gotta get off, before the day begins should I wear Pampers, or maybe Depends bout to go a damn day gone by young trolls on slashdot throwing up troll signs i have the best microchips do you want a bacon strip started trolling, wouldnt you know i get slapped by a moderater and slapped like a ho so now my post is -1 Troll bet you feel pretty cool behind your console now i'm going to hax0r j00. you knows it a lie. i can't do that but i can give you the evil eye and masturbate in diapers in warm apple pie i'm a troll, french fry

I love ramen noodles, they're so great they even remind me to use Windows Update

As much as I like Linux.... (0)

mkmiller (527985) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751847)

I have given up on playing .mov and most other multimedia on my linux box. My wife still has win98 on her machine. If I want to watch something on the web, I just use the win98 box. When it comes to things like this, Linux apps are in the dark ages. Sorry, but its true. Its just too much of a pain in the ars to get working.

Re:As much as I like Linux.... (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751903)

Aside from Sorenson Quicktime, I have found Linux Multimedia apps quite well-behaved, often better behaved than Windows Media player. One huge thing about the linux versions I use is that they tend to work better at displaying movies acceptably on an underpowered machine, much more intelligent with things like frame dropping and maintaining sync. It seems that Windows developers are becoming less and less concerned with the older hardware, and that is disappointing. It will be quite a while longer before I will be able to afford an upgrade, but linux apps makes my 400 MHz display even high-quality movies acceptably. I may drop a lot of frames, but at least it maintains decent framerates and maintains sync...

Re:As much as I like Linux.... (2)

rseuhs (322520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752085)

This was true, about half a year ago.

But today, everything works:

  • DivX:
  • Works (doesn't work on the Mac the so-called multimediasystem, BTW. Yes, I've tried and no, don't bother posting links unless you *really* watched DivX yourself on a Mac)
  • Real:
  • Works out of the box (at least on SuSE)
  • asf:
  • Works.
  • Sorenson-QT:
  • Works with Crossover

So while I agree that it's not perfect yet, Linux certainly is no longer in the multimedia-darkage anymore. Sorenson is pretty much the only thing still not working. (unless you are willing to pay a small amount for Crossover, which I did)

BTW, I would recommend aviplay, it's friendlier than mplayer and included in most distributions.

[cough] (1)

CdotZinger (86269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752247)



http://allmacintosh.xs4all.nl/preview/206564.html

http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/v ideo_players/divx_codec_for_mac.cfm

Okay... (4, Insightful)

Hiro Antagonist (310179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751854)

I can think of several programs that run under Linux/Unix which will play QuickTime .mov files -- xanim and xmms (plus the QuickTime-xmms plugin) will both play non-sorenson QuickTime files. The problem is, almost nothing worth watching (in the world of things QuickTime) is available in anything other than a Sorenson-encoded version.

Sorenson, of course, is owned by Apple, and they are as likely to make it open-source as Microsoft is to release the next Office under the GPL.

Now, mplayer will play .asf, .wmv, and .mpeg files with a variety of options (such as double-size and full-screen), and it will play VideoCDs quite nicely -- I have several movies that were dragged back from China on VCD that look great when run through mplayer. It's a great little video player, but it having the ability to play non-sorenson QuickTime is hardly news.

If you want QuickTime under Linux, with the Sorenson codec, your only option is Crossover (which works quite nicely, and has given me many minutes of movie-trailer viewing bliss).

Re:Okay... (3, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751885)

Of course, Sorenson is *licensed* by Apple, but not owned by...

And Wine CVS with the Quicktime player (basically what crossover is....) is a valid, free option.. I have verified it to work (though the UI is a bit quirky on redraw, the movie displays fine)... Of course it won't embed in a browser, but works fine stand alone...

Re:Okay... (3, Informative)

gabebear (251933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751904)

Apple has released the specs for almost every aspect of the Quicktime (.mov) standard. They rarely write their own codecs though.

The Sorenson codec is owned by Sorenson [sorenson.com] and Apple pays for it.

Re:Okay... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752242)

They also pay for the right to EXCLUDE everyone else from making a decoder.

Apple effectively owns the Sorenson Codec.

Phil Donahue, liberal moron, kidnapped at 68 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751856)

I just heard some great news on talk radio - Former talk show host Phil Donahue has been kidnapped from his New York house early Thursday morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - because everyone who reads slashdot is liberal and very idealistic in their views, there's no denying he truly is a moron and a disgrace to humanity. Truly an American liberal icon.

Re:Phil Donahue, liberal moron, kidnapped at 68 (1, Funny)

pipeb0mb (60758) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751892)

Too bad today is Wednesday...
:-)

Xine does Quicktime too (3, Informative)

gagravarr (148765) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751869)

Xine [sourceforge.net] does Quicktime to, has done for quite some time. Doesn't do Sorenson either, but they do support win32 codecs, so dropping in the Quicktime dlls isn't impossible futher down the line.

hmm (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751897)

uhm, I've been able to play non-sorenson .movs with aktion for over two years now.. what gives?

Vorbis/OpenDivx instead of mp3/Microsoft Divx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751953)

Still waiting for the Vorbis/OpenDivx combination to get officially supported. Even though OpenDivx is non functional on 64 bit processors it's still easier to run on powerpc than Microsoft's DLL.

MPlayer sucks (0)

kungfooguru (522172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752132)

I hate Mplayer, i tryed to install it. And no
program should complain about my version of
gcc when it was just written, not to mention
the other dependents it needed. I am not upgrading or downgrading my gcc, which makes no sense, a program that you can either upgrade or
downgrade to get it to run. Its just because they are arrogant bastards. And their FAQ pisses me off more. Ill be happy with crossover and
xine [sourceforge.net] .

MPlayer ownz j00! (1)

supaphinn (242720) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752172)

MPlayer is the fastest player i have ever used. I tried a lot of others (xine is really good) but kept going back.
Its the first player i got DVDs to play with
and now its got QuickTime support.

These guys kick ass, quit your bitchin, and go /confiture; make; make install it

Re:MPlayer ownz j00! (0)

kungfooguru (522172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752222)

i hope you mean ./configure Of course its not that easy. U have to have gcc 3.0 or i think 2.5, i dont remember, but not what i have, i have like 2.6xx what came with red hat 7.2. And tahts bullshit to make me change, id rather die then give into arrogant pricks like them.

You dont need crossover! Wine runs quicktime! (1)

elvisior (230844) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752173)

Apologies for being off topic.. but everyone seems to think that you need crossover to run quicktime when wine works fine to run quicktime.

arrogance (1)

Dr_Tom (131218) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752205)

The sort of childish behavior which is reported to have come from this project is exactly the ammunition desired by those trying to label all of us as "fanatical zealots". In short, this project is a disgrace to the greater community.

Let me quickly point out something: Red Hat Software has done a hell-of-a-lot more for free/OSS (and particularly Linux) than the developers in question have ever done.

Console-mode playback (4, Insightful)

Steffan (126616) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752266)

One of the very useful (to me) aspects of MPlayer is that it can run console-only. This is very useful on a slow machine with a hardware decoder: I have a P5-133 with a Hollywood+ MPEG2 decoder which can actually playback video, including DVDs. Not bad for a machine that was 'slow' about four or five years ago.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?