Comment MPlayer - packaging - debian (Score 5, Insightful) 476
Hey men!
What has become of Slashdot? Is it really a non objective flaming pool? Did nobody care to take at least a _short_ look at it before commenting stuff?
I took a _quick_ look. IIRC it's about the following:
1. binary packages of MPlayer in general
2. debian packages made by Marillat
3. license issues of MPlayer (GPL)
4. patent issues of MPlayer
5. why is xine in debian and MPlayer not?
6. Gabu's "stile of speaking"
I (almost) didn't see any objective statement about it so far, just crap. :(
1. There exist binary packages of MPlayer (see http://www.piorunek.pl/~dominik/linux/pkgs/mplayer /)
Their attutude is: Better no packages than bad packages as they have to read all bugreports about them (not the distributions). IMHO they're right.
2. They work to get good debian packages, Marillats packages were refused because at the time he provided them, they were illegal and full of bugs. We still get lot of complains by ppl using Marillats packages...
3. The developer really worked hard to get a 100% GPLed software. Many issues (like libmpeg2 and xanim(?)) are solved through mails with the authors.
4. There are mpeg4 patent issues with libavcodec.
5. But: the exact same issues apply to xine!! (e.g. it uses libavcodec too)
6. no comment, just stay objective ;)
What I wanted to say: Please stay objective and don't start to write crap....
What has become of Slashdot? Is it really a non objective flaming pool? Did nobody care to take at least a _short_ look at it before commenting stuff?
I took a _quick_ look. IIRC it's about the following:
1. binary packages of MPlayer in general
2. debian packages made by Marillat
3. license issues of MPlayer (GPL)
4. patent issues of MPlayer
5. why is xine in debian and MPlayer not?
6. Gabu's "stile of speaking"
I (almost) didn't see any objective statement about it so far, just crap.
1. There exist binary packages of MPlayer (see http://www.piorunek.pl/~dominik/linux/pkgs/mplaye
Their attutude is: Better no packages than bad packages as they have to read all bugreports about them (not the distributions). IMHO they're right.
2. They work to get good debian packages, Marillats packages were refused because at the time he provided them, they were illegal and full of bugs. We still get lot of complains by ppl using Marillats packages...
3. The developer really worked hard to get a 100% GPLed software. Many issues (like libmpeg2 and xanim(?)) are solved through mails with the authors.
4. There are mpeg4 patent issues with libavcodec.
5. But: the exact same issues apply to xine!! (e.g. it uses libavcodec too)
6. no comment, just stay objective
What I wanted to say: Please stay objective and don't start to write crap....
