Linux Media Player

**BMJ** · 09-05-2003

Originally posted by ZerOrDie
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/codecs-status.html

and yes you need to download those and install them in WMP if you want to play certain video files... or just grab mplayer which pretty much plays anything...

Dude that is 100% bull... a lot of those codecs are already integrated into WMP9, and as for the rest? Would you please show me a file that requires a "XAnim's 3ivX Delta 3.5" codec? I especially like the listed "Codecs with problems" and "Not working yet codecs".

**mart_man00** · 09-05-2003

I just think it's stupid to say what you did when you know damn well what he meant.

Wow. I dont know what scares me more, that fact that I agree with him or that he said that for me.

a lot of people complain about viruses and security holes like rpc and well i have yet to see microsoft do anything about it!

Lol, that doesnt count! Thats not a issue, thats a zillion issues.

They spend alot of money just to figure out how people like teh lighting in their icons!

Security/Networking/Programming is where Linux excels. A desktop on top of that would be nice. Its making decent progress considering when they started and how many of there own people they have to fight. Maybe some people here will hear about the cause and be devs for them(X/KDE/Some desktop project)

The biggest difference between those comparisons is the people at Microsoft, Apple, Real, etc have paid programmers whos sole job is to make a media player. Most open source apps (for the most part) are coded by hobbyist who work on it when they get a chance. It is kind of surprising that one of the Linux vendors hasn't put a little money into developing a media player.

True.

It would be nice if someone like RedHat would put in some money. RedHat has done alot already, id like to see someone else pay the bill.

Time isnt a excuse for all the problems, i wish it was. Some people's lives still revolve around mocking everythign that makes a desktop a desktop("What! You dont run straight binary to browse the internet! You n00b go back to winblows...").

**ZerOrDie** · 09-05-2003

Alright, this post needs some SERIOUS clarification.

First of all, let's carify why we insist on the correct naming of the operating system. The GNU project aims to create a Free (as in freedom) UNIX operating system. The GNU system is a collection of tools, libraries and compilers which stand together as a complete operating system. The project initially intended their system, the GNU system to use their own kernel, an implementation of the Mach kernel and it's microkernels grouped together as HURD. However, HURD is a microkernel and the absence of skilled developers means (and meant) that there were some serious problems in debugging the IPC (inter process communication) between all the different deamons. So, it's taking along time for the kernel to be stable enough for "mission-crticial" operations.

A few years after the development started for the HURD kernel, Linus began developing Linux - a monolithic kernel, with a much simpler design. The source code for the software was released on the GNU General Public License, as was the GNU system and the HURD kernel but the Linux kernel matured much faster.
The GPL meant that Linux was indeed free software, but just as the GNU system lacked a kernel, the Linux kernel lacked an operating system. So, developers began to package the GNU system with the Linux kernel, a completely Free UNIX operating system. (Well, techically GNU's Not Unix ).

The HURD kernel is still being developed and if I'm not mistaken it's beginning to mature now thanks to the use of OSKit for alot of the new(er) device drivers. Debian, a major distributor of GNU/Linux also distrbutes GNU/HURD. The GNU system around the HURD collection of microkernels.

So, hopefully that clears up alot of the confusion to why the GNU is there. Ah, I hear you think, So why should I use it?. Well, the reasons are endless but here is a few: a) Most importantly, the promotion of free software. Everytime you say, or write GNU/Linux you're promoting the GNU project, the FSF and free software in general. Surely that is every users ambition - promotion of the use of free software over proprietry. b) Legal and reputational reasons. Now SCO claim to own the intellectual property of parts of the Linux 2.4.x tree (claims which have never been substantiated) the deliberate campaign by SCO to scare businesses and users out of using the Linux kernel has had ramifications on the free software movement itself. Businesses and users are unaware of the different between the Linux kernel and the GNU system and are largely under the impression that SCO claims to own part of the whole operating system rather than simply a few device drivers of the Linux kernel - a major difference. c) Credit, where it is due. When Cosworth develop the supercharged versions of Ford engines what are the cars called? Ford Escorts? No. Ford Escort Cosworth. Why? People deserve credit for their work.

I could go on all day with the reasoning, but at the end of the day you'll have to make an informed decision for yourself. Ask yourself, "Do I care about Free Software, Freedom and the promotion of knowledge?". If you are going to answer yes, then you have no excuse to misname the operating system "Linux".
Perhaps it would help you if RMS, founder of the GNU project and the FSF were to explain the case for GNU/Linux.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophylinux-gnu-freedom.html

**Waldo2k2** · 09-05-2003

you know you're going to confuse a lot of people when you talk that way.
A kernel and an operating system are sononomous. You state the the linux kernel was without an operating system, really, it was without an INTERFACE. That's what i was getting at earlier, you jumped in with a wise a$$ one line comment that wasn't right, and you still don't have it right. If you don't have a good media player to suggest, stop jumping in with attacks on people.

Back to topic.
I don't like WMP, it just feels to clunky to me, seems like it eats more resources than it should...plus it goes along with a lot of changes in windows that I've come to not like lately. Also, I'm lost on your problem, you say you want something to organize your music, but WMP is the only one that can do it? If you threw all your mp3's in the same folder, that's your first mistake

.
If you need to organize them by whats in the info tags at the beginning of the mp3 file...try www.bluechillies.com they've got a lot of freeware, can't remember if it's all for windows or not but i know they have plenty of media stuff to organize mp3's.

**confuted** · 09-05-2003

Putting your mp3s all in one directory certainly is not a mistake if you have ID3 in all/most of the mp3s. I have over 1500 in one directory and WinAmp has no trouble at all with it. It works quite nicely.

**mart_man00** · 09-05-2003

I don't like WMP, it just feels to clunky to me, seems like it eats more resources than it should

Dude, do you expect it to be smaller when it supports a zillion features that work (well) with a real interface? When its not a OS or security software MS tends to do well, atleast as far as the user is concerned.

Wow, my car on the assembly line is ligher than the one at the dealer, there must be something wrong with the dealers! Theres no way that could be filled with AUTOMOTIVE PARTS!!!

Putting your mp3s all in one directory certainly is not a mistake if you have ID3 in all/most of the mp3s. I have over 1500 in one directory and WinAmp has no trouble at all with it. It works quite nicely.

I used to do that. I also have a MP3 walk man and stereo(i really like the stereo), its alot of trouble. I normal just run the batch job to rearrange by the tags.

Its alittle nicer for MP3s and backups, instead of albums have basicly every song ever made by a band and a handfull live songs. The discs are dirt cheap now, just make a bunch and addon.

By the way, i did buy a nice size chunk of it

I wish there was a itunes like site with my kind of music(metal)...

**~~frenchfry164~~** · 09-05-2003

MP3's suck, use Ogg Vorbis dude

Oh, and IMHO Windows Media Player is one of the one few things Microsoft has done right. I had problems with it slowing my computer down on my old AMD K6-2 500MHz 192MB PC133 computer, but on my new Athlon 2k+ 512MB PC2100 I can't even tell it's running at all. In fact, I usually shut the music off on my games and use WMP to play my music in the background.

I think Microsoft made the new Windows Media Player with fast computers connected to fast internet connections in mind. If your computer is slow, WinAmp is the next best thing.

For *nix based OS's I often use XMMS. It supports a ton of formats, and it can use dynamic bitrates.

**Waldo2k2** · 09-05-2003

>>Dude, do you expect it to be smaller when it supports a zillion features that work (well) with a real interface? When its not a OS or security software MS tends to do well, atleast as far as the user is concerned.

Wow, my car on the assembly line is ligher than the one at the dealer, there must be something wrong with the dealers! Theres no way that could be filled with AUTOMOTIVE PARTS!!!<<

But im not interested in those features, so i don't want to use such a player. So it feels clunky to me.

And it didn't matter if he has ID3 and nothing to read the tags with

**joshdick** · 09-06-2003

ZerOrDie, you need to chillax and get off your high horse, dude. I'm certainly not trying to bash GNU, Unix, Linux, or any of their kernels/OSs. I do believe in the Open Source philosophy. If I didn't, why do you think I'd buy another hard drive and install Mandrake? I think as a programmer and a wannabe computer genius it will benefit me to learn all I can about the *nixes. However, none of this changes the fact that I can't find a media player for Linux that meets my high and downright picky standards. I wish I could program myself precisely what I want. Maybe four or five years from now when I've got that Comp. Sci. degree I'll be able to contribute to the movement in that way. But until I or someone else writes the sort of program I'm looking for, it looks like I'm going to keep using WMP.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to say that I like Microsoft, but ya know what? They done good on this one thing. I may not like much at all about their software, but for me, WMP is just what I want.

WMP probably does eat up more resources than it should, but those are my resources to do with as I please. I wish to use my precious memory and processor cycles to play my music easily. I hope no one minds that.

So far, I haven't seen more than a handful of helpful suggestions. I shall explore those options, and thank you to those who made such helpful suggestions. So, if no one else has anything constructive to say, I would not object to the closing of this thread.

**Brian** · 09-06-2003

Oh and we forgot to mention how sinister WMP is. It is yet another piece of Microsoft vapourware to kill the competition using unauthodox bundling tactics.

Microsoft drove away Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer with windows. They got into legal bollocks for doing this. But now they're out to get Nullsoft and all the other legit media player producers by bundling Windows Media Player with windows. As programmers we should be against this anti-competitive behavior, unless we all want to end up working for Microsoft (the only software company/political party to be left in the future).

**joshdick** · 09-06-2003

On the one hand, Microsoft's practice of bundling software stiffles its competition; but on the other hand, I expect my OS (or kernel or whatever the heck will appease you all) to come with certain programs like a browser, some sort of word processor, and a media player. I certainly wouldn't mind, though, if those applications I expect were written by companies other than the company who wrote the OS.

And I never said I liked Microsoft or it's business practices. I just said that I like WMP.

Mods, are you there? It's me, joshdick.

**mart_man00** · 09-06-2003

Its Gates' OS, he should put in what ever the hell he feels like. If you dont like IE/WMP dont use them. If it bugs you that much dont use Windows.

Im with joshdick, some things are expected. Basic media is one.

**RobR** · 09-06-2003

M$ is evil / Open source will save the world *yawn*

Yeah, yeah yeah.

**Brian** · 09-07-2003

Originally posted by joshdick
to come with certain programs like a browser, some sort of word processor,

So when Microsoft has its own commercial word processor, Word. This isn't bundled. That's awful nice of them to prevent themselves from going out of business. I wonder if they would be so kind if they didn't have a word processor, but other companies did.

Thread: Linux Media Player

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Similar Threads

I'm so close to finishing this...please help with logic error

uninstalling windows media player 10

media player problem

Media Player

Codec Bitrates?