Re: Whaaw Media Player
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:37:03 +0200 Jarno Suni jarno.ilari.s...@gmail.com wrote: In my experience, in practice most people need restricted codecs including Adobe Flash plugin to provide a complete operating system experience, so users have to install something anyway. Besides different media players have different strengths in my limited experience: VLC can handle different playback speeds even with audio* and can be controlled nicely by lirc i.e. by remote control (although it does not survive from suspend to RAM maybe due to the fact that I have to restart lirc then). Xine is the best DVD player (I mean it can play some DVDs that e.g. VLC can not, totem can not play DVDs from iso files: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem/+bug/122635.) Kaffeine is the best player for digital television. Totem has the best mozilla plugin although it is not perfect, so sometimes you have to use the mediaplayerconnectivity add-on and another media player; in some cases even that trick does not work, but that could be also web service's fault. As for random access of video streams, Flash player is usually the only working solution, if it can be used with the network service in question, though it needs a powerful CPU at least in full screen mode. Flash player can't survive suspend to RAM... *) alsaplayer can handle different playback speeds even better, but it is only an audio player and besides can't play mp4a. In summary, media player experience in Ubuntu is still far from complete. I don't think anyone claims it is complete, but giving a user the best experience we can is important. At least when we give them Totem Movie Player, it is a starting point. Most normal users are not going to install all possible players to see which one works best for them. They do, however, want something. Totem requires the least work for the limited Xubuntu development team, since it is used in Ubuntu also. -- Charlie Kravetz Linux Registered User Number 425914 [http://counter.li.org/] Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com] -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Xubuntu team direction
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:31:05 +0200 Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi wrote: Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: Hello, Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've been thinking quite a bit about this and have been waiting for the appropriate time to jump in. *General gist*: I think a council *could* be good for Xubuntu. However, its membership should be limited to 3 people due to the small size of our community (if we can't find consensus now, putting us all on a council isn't going to give us consensus either); it can grow later as necessary. Ultimately, this change should be mostly a transparent one and not a harbinger of great change or divergence from the Ubuntu community and processes. In fact, I feel this change should instead aim to bring greater consistency, stability, and most importantly longevity to our project. On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi mailto:o...@knome.fi wrote: I must disagree with this, although I see the point of only having 3 members. From our experiences from the two last releases, my feeling is that the problem hasn't been finding consensus. The problem has been, as I see it (and I hate to bring this up again), that the one-leader approach has given problems on (mostly artwork) issues when you and I have disagreed. We have fortunately always found a compromise, but I really feel that I should have had the power to decide (against you), especially the rest of the developer community agreed with me. Just as I think Lionel should make any decisions on technical side or Jim on the documentation team, even if the leader or a single developer disagreed. The advantage with a bigger council, I think, is that it really involves people more. If we only choose three members to the council, the rest are unheard and the council can just overrule their thoughts. If they participate in the council, they have a better chance to be heard. I understand that a complete consensus (and pleasing everyone) might not be something we can achieve with 3+ members (either), but it really gives me a more community-based feeling. And in the end, I'm only proposing 4 members, and there's not really a decent way of determining which team (leader) should not be in the council. If you have an idea which team/who should NOT be in the council, please point your finger on the team. All that seems to be said is something to the effect of if I don't get to do what I want The concept of each person trying to decide for themselves what will be in each release is not an answer. Somehow, somewhere, someone has to be able to make each of these items work with the others. That is the leaders job. No leader, a big council, and each person making their own decision as to what is included means nothing really works right. I don't know what organization runs on the concept of this is my decision, not any one other persons, and not any groups. Unfortunately, in my 50+ years of life, the only place that attitude ever led to was non-cooperation. Anytime each person thinks they are the deciding individual for a part of things, and someone else can try to make it work, things will have nowhere to go but down. I can not think of any successful project that got there without a leader. Can anyone else? Basically, this project does need leadership, and a group of individuals insisting that it does not will not help it along. The more this thread grows, the more it sounds like children fighting to get their own way. And yes, that is the only way I can think to word this. Watch a group of children trying to make a decision, and each one will argue he/she is right and should be the one making the decision. There is no consensus when each one has to right to satisfy their own thinking. Our artwork in Xubuntu 9.10 was good, but not great. There seems to something that says if a change might be good, forget it. If you beg the right people in the right group, you might get a change. As a whole unit, none of this is helping improve things. If a suggestion is made that the artwork might not have been great, it is disregarded or the person is told they don't have to use it. Where does this make Xubuntu a better distribution? If improvements are to be made, there must be a consesus from leadership. Without it, one individuals improvements are another individuals degradation of the the whole. Leadership by separate individuals does not really work, in reality. This entire tirade by a couple of individuals against an individual needs to stop. The fact is that Xubuntu is a better distribution BECAUSE of CODY-SOMERVILLE. -- Charlie Kravetz Linux Registered User Number 425914 [http://counter.li.org/] Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com] -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Xubuntu team direction
Charlie Kravetz wrote: On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:31:05 +0200 Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi wrote: Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: Hello, Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've been thinking quite a bit about this and have been waiting for the appropriate time to jump in. *General gist*: I think a council *could* be good for Xubuntu. However, its membership should be limited to 3 people due to the small size of our community (if we can't find consensus now, putting us all on a council isn't going to give us consensus either); it can grow later as necessary. Ultimately, this change should be mostly a transparent one and not a harbinger of great change or divergence from the Ubuntu community and processes. In fact, I feel this change should instead aim to bring greater consistency, stability, and most importantly longevity to our project. On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi mailto:o...@knome.fi wrote: I must disagree with this, although I see the point of only having 3 members. From our experiences from the two last releases, my feeling is that the problem hasn't been finding consensus. The problem has been, as I see it (and I hate to bring this up again), that the one-leader approach has given problems on (mostly artwork) issues when you and I have disagreed. We have fortunately always found a compromise, but I really feel that I should have had the power to decide (against you), especially the rest of the developer community agreed with me. Just as I think Lionel should make any decisions on technical side or Jim on the documentation team, even if the leader or a single developer disagreed. The advantage with a bigger council, I think, is that it really involves people more. If we only choose three members to the council, the rest are unheard and the council can just overrule their thoughts. If they participate in the council, they have a better chance to be heard. I understand that a complete consensus (and pleasing everyone) might not be something we can achieve with 3+ members (either), but it really gives me a more community-based feeling. And in the end, I'm only proposing 4 members, and there's not really a decent way of determining which team (leader) should not be in the council. If you have an idea which team/who should NOT be in the council, please point your finger on the team. All that seems to be said is something to the effect of if I don't get to do what I want The concept of each person trying to decide for themselves what will be in each release is not an answer. Somehow, somewhere, someone has to be able to make each of these items work with the others. That is the leaders job. No leader, a big council, and each person making their own decision as to what is included means nothing really works right. Compromises are to be done and people will be disappointed, including me, and that's totally fine. Experts in their own field should be valued and trusted. I expect individuals would work per the strategy for a release, as they have used to. I don't know what organization runs on the concept of this is my decision, not any one other persons, and not any groups. Unfortunately, in my 50+ years of life, the only place that attitude ever led to was non-cooperation. Anytime each person thinks they are the deciding individual for a part of things, and someone else can try to make it work, things will have nowhere to go but down. I can not think of any successful project that got there without a leader. Can anyone else? Basically, this project does need leadership, and a group of individuals insisting that it does not will not help it along. The more this thread grows, the more it sounds like children fighting to get their own way. And yes, that is the only way I can think to word this. Watch a group of children trying to make a decision, and each one will argue he/she is right and should be the one making the decision. There is no consensus when each one has to right to satisfy their own thinking. Our artwork in Xubuntu 9.10 was good, but not great. There seems to something that says if a change might be good, forget it. If you beg the right people in the right group, you might get a change. As a whole unit, none of this is helping improve things. If a suggestion is made that the artwork might not have been great, it is disregarded or the person is told they don't have to use it. Where does this make Xubuntu a better distribution? If improvements are to be made, there must be a consesus from leadership. Without it, one individuals improvements are another individuals degradation of the the whole. Leadership by separate individuals does not really work, in reality. This entire tirade by a couple of individuals against an individual needs to stop. I never meant to express a tirade against anybody. Things have not worked as smoothly as they could
Re: Whaaw Media Player
Charlie Kravetz wrote: On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:37:03 +0200 Jarno Suni jarno.ilari.s...@gmail.com wrote: In my experience, in practice most people need restricted codecs including Adobe Flash plugin to provide a complete operating system experience, so users have to install something anyway. Besides different media players have different strengths in my limited experience: VLC can handle different playback speeds even with audio* and can be controlled nicely by lirc i.e. by remote control (although it does not survive from suspend to RAM maybe due to the fact that I have to restart lirc then). Xine is the best DVD player (I mean it can play some DVDs that e.g. VLC can not, totem can not play DVDs from iso files: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem/+bug/122635.) Kaffeine is the best player for digital television. Totem has the best mozilla plugin although it is not perfect, so sometimes you have to use the mediaplayerconnectivity add-on and another media player; in some cases even that trick does not work, but that could be also web service's fault. As for random access of video streams, Flash player is usually the only working solution, if it can be used with the network service in question, though it needs a powerful CPU at least in full screen mode. Flash player can't survive suspend to RAM... *) alsaplayer can handle different playback speeds even better, but it is only an audio player and besides can't play mp4a. In summary, media player experience in Ubuntu is still far from complete. I don't think anyone claims it is complete, but giving a user the best experience we can is important. At least when we give them Totem Movie Player, it is a starting point. Most normal users are not going to install all possible players to see which one works best for them. They do, however, want something. Totem requires the least work for the limited Xubuntu development team, since it is used in Ubuntu also. Well to be fair, Totem is no more complete than really any other media player which uses gstreamer. Totem's completeness is almost ENTIRELY dependent on gstreamer, same as Whaaw or Parole, so I think it's a bit unfair to say Totem is any better than either one. - J -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
