What a grumpy asshole
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you look for reasons to be unhappy with ANYTHING, you'll find them. Why not focus on what's good and what needs to be improved? "This is shit and too big of a pain in the ass to screw with" isn't a particularly exacting or insightful analysis.
Re:What a grumpy asshole
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why are so many people taking his comments personally? Did you write the video players he critisized? No, so WTF? If you replaced all the names of the Linux media players with Windows Media Player, this forum would be full of "Hurrah!" and "I totally agree!". His points are all valid and are HIS OPINION. Most of them I personally agree with as well. But just because he says some negative things about a Linux app *gasp*, you people are reacting like he killed you mother or something. I really don't get it, but it really strengthens my position that Slashdot has really gone downhill the last couple of years.
Re:What a grumpy asshole
by
sfe_software
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If you look for reasons to be unhappy with ANYTHING, you'll find them. Why not focus on what's good and what needs to be improved?
The thing is, he does make some good points. For example, why does everyone need to reinvent the GUI wheel (as if we didn't have enough widget sets and window managers to deal with on *nix)? Why does everything have to be skinable?
I use MPlayer extensively -- but I don't touch the GUI, I have a text-based front-end for it. When it comes to playing video files, scaling, utilizing my ATI's TV-Out, etc -- MPlayer kicks all sorts of ass.
However, it's such a common trend these days to make everything skinable, and to create one's own interface standards. That's one of the things I hate most about WMP for Windows (that, and it periodically just stops functioning).
It's one thing I hate about Mozilla (why can't they use the native menus and widgets?) -- though I use Mozilla exclusively, I still feel a lot of time was wasted implementing their own text box (that still doesn't work quite right), menus, etc...
While I personally use MPlayer, I can't say I'd recommend it to someone who doesn't know how to compile software (using a specific gcc version no less), figure out the appropriate command-line options, etc. Tried to walk a semi-linux-literate person through it, and he still has no working MPlayer. As for the GUI, I also wouldn't recommend it, for most of the reasons noted in Jamie's rant.
Re:What a grumpy asshole
by
mixmasta
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just because he is a grumpy asshole, doesn't mean he's not right.
--
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Re:What a grumpy asshole
by
jackbox
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"This is shit and too big of a pain in the ass to screw with" isn't a particularly exacting or insightful analysis.
True. But it's exactly the same analysis that every "normal" (non-techno geek) user will give. And that makes it extremely valuable.
I like this guy, but...
by
mrseigen
·
· Score: 5, Informative
...command-line MPlayer works perfectly for me. Aside from that, he certainly lets people know what's wrong with the projects they've spent most of their lives on.
Re:I like this guy, but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
command-line... works perfectly for me
Everytime that phrase comes to your mind I want you to take a deep breath and think whether you would say that to your non-technical mother/father/granny/whatever. This is a great review in that it takes it from a true end user perspective. This is the experience that a regular joe would have. This is the battle that we must fight and the answer is not "command-line... works perfectly for me."
Re:I like this guy, but...
by
DrMaurer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yeah, it works fine for you, but it shouldn't be the only way, should it?
I like the concept of themes, really, I do, but most people who do them have no concept of user-interface-design. If you're distributing a product, you should endevor to create a professional appearance once the work's been done behind the scenes.
A lot of folks seem to think that if it works for them, it works for everyone. Look at the plethora of shitty themes on themes.org or winamp skins at winamp.com or whatever it is that mac users do . . . my mac doesn't work right now. (iBook's yo-yo power supply is busted.) Anyhow, they're mostly just bad, cluttered, and really not that cohesive. I'm sure there are a couple, but I end up just getting the background pictures mostly.
For chrissakes, if you spend your whole life on a project, is 8 hours to make a theme unadorned with pictures of Heidi Klum wearing a Tux baby-T too much to ask?
"Gentlemen, BEHOLD! This thing!"
You should be able to use command lines, if you want, but it shouldn't be required.
-- Dan
Re:I like this guy, but...
by
Dave_bsr
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Ok, I struggled with getting every supposedly great media player for windows to work right, including iterations of WiMP and Quicktime. Don't talk to me about Realplayer. A different media player for every media.
So here ya go. Mplayer is just a media player. It opens every media you can think of - mplayer [file] and it just works. Period. Set it up to be the default media player in your pretty GUI file manager and you'll never think about it again.
Interaction is a bit different than usual, i'll admit, but it's intuitive and easy once you get used to it. Different != bad. Key-presses are faster than grabbing the mouse and pointing it at something, especially if you're watching a DVD and just want to reach over and slap the spacebar to pause, or hit an arrow key repeatedly to skip forward or back. Mplayer's key mappings are easy to remember and logical - q for quit, f for fullscreen, space for pause, and arrow keys to skip forward and back. You can even adjust audio playback sync to the video, if you learn a bit about it. I'd argue that the average "idiot*" user could learn it and love it just fine - especially since it's one media player, and one interface, for every video (even audio) file on his or her system.
Mplayer GUI's aren't that bad either, whiners...
: )
*Very few are idiots, and many learn fast...don't think that just because you and I can program that means everyone else is retarded.
--
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Re:I like this guy, but...
by
njdj
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Different != bad.
I disagree. When it comes to user interface conventions, Different=Bad.
Just imagine walking into a car showroom to buy a car, and the sales guy shows you this neat-looking model. It has 2 pedals, one of them turns on the windshield wipers, the other turns on the heated rear window. The brake is operated by a stalk on the left of the steering column... need I continue?
A lot of user-interface conventions are pretty arbitrary. If we were starting from nothing, maybe something else would have been better. But we're not starting from nothing. We've all gotten used to a bunch of conventions. Products which conform to the conventions we know are easier to use than products which do not.
Re:I like this guy, but...
by
seanellis
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sorry to disagree, but the original author is right, and you even point it out yourself:
Interaction is a bit different than usual, i'll admit, but it's intuitive and easy once you get used to it.
There's the problem right there, staring you in the face.
Why should I have to "get used to it"? I have already spent time and effort gaining knowledge about how to deal with scroll bars, file selectors, bringing windows to the top, minimizing windows, etc. If I can't apply that to this app, and have to learn all those things all over again just for this app then I lose.
I haven't got the time to "get used to" every app's idea of a pretty UI. I want something that works the way everything else works, thanks.
For some reason, it's media stuff that tends to sport these kinds of interfaces. Non-standard windows. Controls I can't see, or that don't work the way I expect, or that don't do anything because they are cruft that just looks like a control. More pixels dedicated to the skin than to the movie. Favorites bars. Channel bars. Media bars. Quicklaunch bars. For all I know or care, topless bars.
WHO ON EARTH THOUGHT I WANTED ANY OF THIS CRAP?
What I want from a media player is simple: a rectangular window with a standard title and menu bar. Controls: play, stop, and a horizontal scroll bar for fast forward/rewind - and it had better be a proper UI standard scrollbar too. Maximise widget for full screen video. Standard menus for everything else.
Of course, Linux isn't the only OS that has this problem. Windows Media Player is another execrable pile of "cool" skins and stuff. I selected the "classic" skin as soon as the thing installed, and turned every UI option off. And Quicktime player's UI rightly has its own page in the UI hall of shame. You don't even get a choice with this one.
No wonder users these days get confused. And when users get confused, they leave.
How about what's wrong with JWZ?
by
ejaytee
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I used to think JWZ was cool. Lucid EMACS, the whole RMS techno-tension thing, his general sense of mightiness.
Now I think he mostly likes to complain about stuff and run his nightclub.
It's probably fun to make lists of things that suck all day long, but why not use some of that talent and nervous energy to join in and help?
Re:How about what's wrong with JWZ?
by
Raul+Acevedo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's probably fun to make lists of things that suck all day long, but why not use some of that talent and nervous energy to join in and help?
Because part of his point is that at this point in the history of the computer, being able to use a simple app to view video under Linux should not require one to have to do it oneself from scratch to do it right.
This gets mentioned a lot on slashdot; "if you don't like it, stop complaining and YOU do it right!" While there's a lot of validity to that, there are many times when the issue is that by now, certain basic things of using a computer have been solved 10000 times over.
I mean come on, "://", or the "MRL browser", to open a file dialog? WTF? I went through the same frustration with Xine, it took forever to figure how to do something as simple as open friggin' files.
Innovation is one thing. But coming up with a hard to use interface, ignoring some really, really basic UI guidelines that have been around for what 30 years is another. At that point, "if you don't like it, do it yourself" becomes an excuse, not a valid response.
-- In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror,
and you would not have been notified.
OS X + Fink = bliss
by
IvyMike
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I know he poo-poos this idea, but he really should go to OS X. JWZ highly prizes usability, and so do most Mac developers (quicktime viewer aside), so it seems like a good match. He wants xemacs; he can get xemacs with fink and run it on a rootless X server, and thus get the best of both worlds. All the video stuff is likely trivial on a Mac.
And admit it, any time you see someone with hair like his, you immediately think, "Mac user".
Finally, somebody who else who is unafraid to point out the stupidity of the interfaces being foisted upon us!
Look, folks - your program is NOT a physical device I can stack in my equipment rack - DON'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONE! It is a PROGRAM! Make it look like a program! I want a simple menu bar across the top of the window. I want that menu bar to follow accepted standard practice - File, Options, Help. I want a minimum of BS - just play the DAMN FILE!
Amen! The number of software DVD players that try to look my hardware DVD players is amazing. I mean, who actually uses the front panel of their hardware DVD player, other than the "eject" button?
At the very least, if you feel the need to make your software look like hardware, make it look like a hardware DVD player remote control, which people actually use...
-- "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
> Amen! The number of software DVD players that try to look my hardware DVD players is amazing. I mean, who actually uses the front panel of their hardware DVD player, other than the "eject" button? > At the very least, if you feel the need to make your software look like hardware, make it look like a hardware DVD player remote control, which people actually use...
"I did that for TackLinux-TV-Tuner, and these stupid users complain that they want to use the numbers on their keyboard when trying to select Channel 112, rather than mousing to the '1', '2', '3',... '0' icons! Stupid users!
So I made a new sk1n for the keyboard. Put a real keyboard on the scanner and made a 1600x400 bitmap of it! It looks just like an IBM keyboard, you can mouse over and click on the '1', through '0' keys, or the numeric keypad, provided you mouse over and click on the NumLock icon first! And the stupid users still didn't like my UI! One of them even complained because he was building a home theater with an LCD projector, and at 1280x1024 as his screen resolution and my image of the keyboard was too wide for his screen!
"Stupid user! Like duh he should have just gotten a bigger screen! (Like, doesn't everyone watch movies at 1600x1200?) I mean, what did he want me to do, scan in a Sinclair ZX-80 so the image of the keyboard sk1n would fit in his dinky 1280x1024 layout or what?
I told him I was sorry, but if he couldn't stay current with hardware, he should just go fuck himself and use Windows or something. Stupid ungrateful users! Sometimes I don't know why I bother to code for them!"
You get what you pay for.
by
dannycim
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Instead of bitching about OpenSource and free (as in beer) products which have not even reached 1.0 stable release, be nice to the project developpers and make constructive suggestions.
Man! People are such a***oles nowadays. They expect everything for free and delivered on a gold plate. Pffft!
Re:This guy is way off base
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Firstly I don't believe that he wrote this intending for it to be posted to Slashdot: It'd likely be much more politically correct if it were. Having said that, you are not JWZ (nor am I)--The guy was one of the primary developers at Netscape, was a major impetus in getting Mozilla up and going, and then flamed out of Netscape when the suits/AOL took over. You don't have to respect his opinion, but realize that a lot of people do give it credence because he has proven himself in the industry.
The primary point that he seems to be making is what a lot of people feel about Linux/open source: This isn't a hobby for me, so what's the point? For someone for whom it's a hobby, using a command line with reams of intricate command line options is a very reasonable option, but for someone who it isn't they want a clean and clear interface that affords usage in obvious ways (for a media player that of course is for VCR like functionality).
This review sucks..
by
Maeryk
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Mainly because he limited himself to RPM's and didnt specify what WM he was using.
I use both mplayer and gmplayer on Mandrake just fine. It doesnt have resize problems, has resize ability, etc. That _may_ be because Im using windowmaker and/or blackbox, but it seems to work fine in KDE as well. Course, I installed the source for them, and compiled from scratch, after doing all the enable/disable flags the right way for my system.
The only issue Im having with Mplayer right now is it has a tendency to put some.viv files upside down when it plays them.. not sure, and not really bothered by it, but it was something i noticed.
Xine hasnt worked for me since day one.. but i have never tweaked it.. I just think it doesnt like my DVD drive.. as soon as it comes up and tries to hit the drive it locks the system hard.
I dont know what the problem is for this guy, other than the fact that he seems to be RPM happy and he uses RedHat. (which is certainly his prerogative)
Maeryk
-- Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Re:This review sucks..
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
> Mainly because he limited himself to RPM's and didnt specify what WM he was using. > > I use both mplayer and gmplayer on Mandrake just fine. It doesnt have resize problems, has resize ability, etc. That _may_ be because Im using windowmaker and/or blackbox, but it seems to work fine in KDE as well. Course, I installed the source for them, and compiled from scratch, after doing all the enable/disable flags the right way for my system.
Congratulations.
So write up an FAQ. Tell us:
1) What WMs work with what video programs.
2) What libraries are required.
3) What version of gcc you used *G*
4) What flags are set, where to set them, and what's "right" for a wide range of systems, say, a few nVIDIA and ATI systems on AMD and Intel chips, and/or any specific motherboard-related issues.
5) All the other variables I've overlooked, but that you didn't, that make the difference between "It Works" and "It Doesn't".
The problem JWZ is ranting about is usability, not functionality. You don't have a usability problem, because you already have a large base of knowledge, because you've made a large investment in time and energy to figure out how to make it work.
I made a similar comment the other day - and I've seen the same flames today, which pretty muchn boil down to "Hey, asshole, we code for the fun of it, not because we want to save the world from Microsoft! We code because we like to, and couldn't care less if anyone other than us ever uses our code!"
(The rest of this comment isn't addressed at you per se, it's addressed to the readership who've flamed JWZ for being a clueless and ungrateful twit - you've seen 'em - "hey, asshole, what have you coded for us lately", and "hey, be thankful you have any code at all, just 'cuz you're not 31337 enough to run it!")
Well, that's fine. Good to have you guys out of the closet. Billgatus will take over the world - and hey, that's fine, since it won't stop you from coding.
But if your code compiles in a forest where there are only 100 systems that can execute it (because those 100 systems all belong to the developers working on the project, as opposed to those of us who develop other things don't have time to keep up with the developments in every open source/free software video project), can you really be said to have created something useful in the first place? If code compiles on no machines, can it really be said to be code? And if you don't give a shit about your code running on a wide variety of platforms ("What, our code only runs on Distro X! You wanna run his app that needs Distro Y, and my app, you gotta dual-boot, or choose between his app and my app! Choose my app, 'cuz I'm cooler!") why should I give a shit about your code in the first place?
If that's how you want it, hey, it's your code, but under that scenario, what value does open source/free software offer me?
"Well", you say, "if you haven't coded anything for us, why should we give a fuck what you? It's open source, take it or fuckin' leave it."
Fair enough - but then why should any of us give a rat's fried patoot about freeing that DeCSS guy, or that Ogg Theora stuff, when it's plain as day that I'll never view a video with code based on it anyways?
The difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs offering me closed-source binaries on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and you offering me code that I can't necessarily compile or use on a take-it-or-leave-it basis -- is that at least the frickin' movie plays on Windows and OS X.
Shouldn't rant about things you don't understand
by
Rayban
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First of all, installing apt on RedHat doesn't compete to install packages - it uses apt to install RPMs, rather than debs. This means that it will automatically locate RPM dependencies and install them, exactly as a Debian system would. It just adds missing functionality to the RPM system.
It all comes down to people complaining and complaining that they can't do something right away. Why not build a package for mplayer that installs it the way you want? These people are writing software in their free time. You don't have to use it.
"Uh, no. I've seen the horror of Red Hat 8.0, and there's no fucking way I'm putting Gnome2 on any more of my machines for at least another six months, maybe a year."
I can't understand why you would complain about installing dependencies for a product that is still in development. How is software supposed to advance if we're always using v1 of libraries instead of v2?
"What are these fucktards thinking???"
Why do people get off on putting other people's work down? Just because you made a quick buck in an IPO doesn't give you the right to rant about whatever you want and expect people to bow down. Why not write up a bug report or a quick suggestion? Isn't that what we do if something bugs us? That's the beauty of having each access to the application developers! Your riches don't elevate you above the rest of us, my friend.
Don't whine that something doesn't work unless you are willing to fix it or willing switch to an environment that satisfies your needs. I should know better than to read JWZ's blog.
-- æeee!
It's a mindset. (Stating the obvious).
by
Bollie
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Every single person I know who has played video on Linux (except DVDs) with MPlayer fell in love with it. Really, there are only six shortcut keys you need:
right, up : ffd ffffd left, down : rev rrev f : fullscreen space : pause
That's 99.9% of what I do when I when I play movies and MPlayer does it REALLY well. No smegging around with codecs, plays broken.avi's as easily as non-broken ones AND now features Sorenson SVQ4 playback! Hint: keyboard is faster than mouse!
I'd really like to see this guy giving constructive criticisms. No, don't ask him to criticize my post, NO NO NO!
Re:It's a mindset. (Stating the obvious).
by
CSG_SurferDude
·
· Score: 3, Funny
But what's the key to change NOW to a previously defined educational movie, for when you unexpectedly hear your spouse, GF|BF|SO, parent, etc. opening up the door of your bedroom/Office while you're watching the latest download of "Debbie Does Dobies!"?
Re:It's a mindset. (Stating the obvious).
by
PetiePooo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Ok, here's some constructive criticism:
From his article (and FWIW, I am in total agreement): ... it's a total pain in the ass to use due to rampant "themeing." Why do people do this? They map this stupid shaped window with no titlebar (oh, sorry, your choice of a dozen stupidly-shaped windows without titlebars) all of which use fonts that are way too small to read.
One of the reasons M$ Windows has done so well is that it looks the same from one machine to another and from one program to another. If I have Windows on my computer, I know how to use your Windows computer. If you know how to use Word, you know how to use Excel. The menus are in the same order and have largely the same items. The active titlebar is a different color from the inactive ones, and clicking on it raises that window to the top. Standard, default appearances and actions! How WinXP is turning it into a Fischer-Price toy is a rant for a different day..
One of the most well liked "themed" programs for Windows is WinAMP. I submit to you that one of the reasons it was so well accepted is that the default skin looked like a normal window! Only the color and size were different. That meant that my mom (BTW, she still can't spell WWW..) knew how to resize it, move it and close it.. Instead of having a round volume control, like a home audio componenet, it had a slider bar, like a *gasp* PROGRAM! (Clue for those that need one: WinAMP is a program.)
Developers, if you want to give your interface themes and skins and other "fluff", by all means, knock yourself out. However, the default skin should be one that implements the interface as it would appear without a skin. Please! For everyone out there how likes to make their computer look like Fantasia, there are probably more of us who like it to look like a computer.
All that said, if you dont like it the way it is, break out your EMacs, and Write something better, otherwise, quit bitching!
But i was sure EMacs has its own built in movie player:P
I fully concur
by
GMFTatsujin
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
With his gripe about custome interfaces. Xine is a desktop nightmare. Ditto with most of the other multimedia players I've encountered. They sacrifice high-tech intuitive controls for some made-up high-tech LOOK.
I'd rather just be able to find the play button and get the damn thing out of the way.
When I set up a theme on my desktop, I expect it to be constant, even if it's just the default. I understand this means making an app work with KDE or Gnome or whatever, but it seems to me that that's less work that scraping a graphic interface together from scratch. Skins are for the desktop manager, not the apps themselves, IMHO.
Then there's the issue of the half-completed custom interface that jars from one look to another. For instance - why does the XMMS "browse/open" window look so awful? The rest of the app looks very nice, or is at least non-intrusive to my eyeballs. It's small, it's tight, and it looks like other players I'm familiar with. But when I try to open an MP3, I get this horrific, generic, huge freaking window to browse around in. Yuck. XMMS is the #1 recommended playing app, too, but it doesn't seem to fit in with any window manager beyond generic X.
If someone can recommend an MP3 player that just fits my desktop, I'd be ever so grateful. GMFTatsujin
Re:I fully concur
by
mccalli
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
[I fully concur]...with his gripe about custom interfaces. Xine is a desktop nightmare. Ditto with most of the other multimedia players I've encountered. They sacrifice high-tech intuitive controls for some made-up high-tech LOOK.
Absolutely. Sadly, this follows you around by platform too. The Linux apps tend to have it, Windows apps certainly do (there are some terrible offenders bundled with sound cards), and Apple with its Quicktime player does as well.
Apple in particular ought to know better. Standards are standards for good reason, and a consistent user-interface is key. The writer of The Apple Human Interface Guidelines, which was written years ago for System 7 and which I still retain my copy of even though I'm no longer on a Mac, has many relevant things to say about such nonsense.
Cheers,
Ian
This also applies to XMMS
by
Avumede
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've been saying the same things about skinnable interfaces for a while now. I've never found one that is acceptable. Look at xmms and winamp skins. I'd say 70% are just plain ugly, 30% are good to beautify, and 100% (as far as I've seen) are unusable. When they have text at all, they have tiny unreadable fonts. They have buttons that don't look like buttons, and they are bitmapped so you can't resize it like a normal app.
When I got a Mac and started using iTunes, I was a much happier person.
Hurts when he's right, huh?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I wonder how much effort was wasted on themes that only make video players terribly hard to use. I'v got good eyesight, and I can't even make out what is what with those damn crapplets.
I just looked at his web page www.jwz.com. With an index page like that, who the hell is he to gripe?
Re:What's the point?
by
swordgeek
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Maybe he could try developping sommething, since the source code is there."
I just have two things to say to this comment.
1) Shut. 2) Up.
I am so SICK and TIRED of people mistaking the point of open source in this way! I am not a developer. I am not a programmer. I do not have the time, skills, or inclination to write a media player from scratch, or even fix one of the many broken ones. The fact that I (theoretically) CAN get and modify the source doesn't automatically mean that I MUST do so, if I don't like what's out there. It also does not affect the degree to which the existing players suck!
Once again:
1) The openness of the source code doesn't make the current software suck any less. 2) The OSS-given ability to (re)write software is not a de facto requirement to (re)write said software. It does not absolve the original programmers of their responsibilty to write non-crap.
--
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:This guy is an idiot
by
banky
·
· Score: 3, Informative
>JWZ should learn how to program Implementing Netscape on Unix, and working on Mozilla, doesn't count?
-- ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Re:Ok, youre right...
by
j_kenpo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"All that said, if you dont like it the way it is, break out your EMacs, and Write something better, otherwise, quit bitching!
Enough of these stupid reviews, you have all the code of these shitty projects. Rewrite the GUI for one. What? You dont feel like it? Then stop bitching"
And this, right here, is why its going to be a hard, uphill battle for Linux on the desktop...
mplayer rocks!
by
John+Zero
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is a fact: mplayer just rocks!
It can play just about ANY video file. And it does hell of a job playing! You can switch to fullscreen/back in an instant, even do panning-resizing on the fly (good for viewing 9:16 videos on 3:4 screen), adjust audio/video sync with a key, etc.
Ever tried using windows players? How about playing "bad" avi files, containing no indexes? Media Player, RealOne player all failed on those (well, they do play it, but you can't really seek, or if you can, it's fkkin slow).
Oh, and check that QuickTime player for Windows. It's slow, it's lame, it flickers, you can't resize it or do fullscreen.
I can't say much about mplayer's GUI, because I don't use it, but even that shouldn't be THAT bad. Just compare it to QuickTime or Media Player, which has all that unneccessary crap around the small movie.
Honestly, I like this review
by
Meowfaceman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I honestly think this is a good review.
Let me start by saying that I use Windows. I've tried Linux several times in the past. I have several thousand reasons why I think Linux is a decade or two from becoming a desktop OS. This review more or less demonstrates that.
There are seldom times when I feel like trying to get a program working for more than 10 or 20 minutes. Linux, while powerful, does not help much in this department. When I'm in a bad mood (much like JWZ is) there's no way I want to fuck around with Linux. Period.
My main problem with Linux, however, is the UIs of both the programs and the desktops. I will refuse to use a program because of the UI. Mplayer may be powerful, but as far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't have a UI, I won't use it. I don't care if there is a command line option, I didn't install KDE or Gnome to make the console look pretty.
I know a lot of you have said, "He can develop his own UI for it." Well, that's not why he installed Linux, and it's not why I did, either. I didn't try it expecting to have to write my own code to get things to run acceptably, I did it because it's an alternative to windows. One of the things that will keep (and has kept) Linux from being a desktop OS are things like this.
This is probably going to be an unpopular post, but oh well.
Welcome to the Real World
by
RatBastard
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's a mindless rant written by someone that does not want to compile anything or upgrade.
And guess what? Most people who try Linux don't want to compile or upgrade. They want it to work! This group is growing in size and will soon account for most of the Linux population (if it has not already happened). Most Linux users will be just that, "users" and developers need to start thinking in those terms if they want people to use thier programs and Linux in general.
-- Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Re:Shouldn't rant about things you don't understan
by
siphoncolder
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why do people get off on putting other people's work down? Just because you made a quick buck in an IPO doesn't give you the right to rant about whatever you want and expect people to bow down.
1) People don't get off doing that. They're actually saying something about what they don't like. Progress, as you should remember, is not about sitting silently and taking whatever is handed to you. Progress is made by telling someone what's wrong with what they've done. So what if his tone is nasty? His words are what's important, and his words equate to: "Why is this so hard. Make it consistant, make it easy."
2) He has the right to say whatever he wants. Just like you. Besides, attacking his position or money doesn't invalidate or make less important anything he says unless he can be proven to be wrong. Opinions can be tough to validate or invalidate, but in this case, he makes some very specific points about what he thinks is good and what's not. At no point does he say "I have a lot of money, which makes my point more imporant." He has a WEBSITE which makes his voice simply HEARD.
-- i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Re:This guy is way off base
by
Waffle+Iron
·
· Score: 5, Funny
>>> they want a clean and clear interface that affords usage in obvious ways >>> (for a media player that of course is for VCR like functionality).
Hey, there is improvement!
by
Noryungi
·
· Score: 4, Funny
A few years ago, JWZ used to say that using Linux was OK "as long as your time was worthless"... It's on his web site, you can actually look for it and it's probably there.
So he has made progress! Now he even admits to using Linux! =)
-- The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Re:Hey, there is improvement!
by
hawkestein
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I believe what you previously saw on his site was a quote from the Unix-Haters Handbook: "Linux is only free if your time has no value".
(Insert gratuituous comment of Unix-Haters handbook webpage on Microsoft's site here)
-- --
Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
what he wrote wasn't a review, it was a rant!
by
puck01
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think slashdot did a good job of misleading readers. If you go to the page that lists this 'rant', it clearly states it is a rant.
He never claims its an objective review. He posted it on his personal webpage. He likely did not submit this to slashdot to read. Michael accepted it. It was never meant to get posted on slashdot, and problable doesn't warrent being here.
That being said, I think JWZ is more realistic about the usability of Linux than most slashdot readers.
What Jamie is really complaining about is cruft. Playing a video isn't a big deal, yet all the apps for doing it carry with them excess baggage. This seems to be a generic problem with entertainment applications, regardless of platform. It's not enough just to open a window and do the job. The application has to look like a tacky consumer electronics product.
And no, you shouldn't have to rebuild from source just to run something. The Linux world needs to get that straight.
Re:This guy is way off base
by
Anonvmous+Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"The primary point that he seems to be making is what a lot of people feel about Linux/open source: This isn't a hobby for me, so what's the point? For someone for whom it's a hobby, using a command line with reams of intricate command line options is a very reasonable option, but for someone who it isn't they want a clean and clear interface that affords usage in obvious ways (for a media player that of course is for VCR like functionality)."
Now you all understand where Windows users come from. A little bit of instability is a small price to pay for an interface that does what you expect.
He's one of the implementors of the original Netscape on Unix/X11, part of the Mozilla team (IIRC he actually named it Mozilla), and part of the original XEmacs team.
Not to mention xscreensaver (which, I think, ships with every Linux distro out there), and a few other cool hacks.
-- ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
switching distros
by
biostatman
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I would normally agree that switching distributions just to get an app (or class of apps) to work is a little nutty, but if you *REALLY* want to play videos, the plf rpms for Mandrake make installing quite a bit of video software for linux super easy (though I imagine there are apt-get repositories that do the same). All you need to do is go here to configure and add a urpmi source from one of the plf mirror sites, and it is literally as easy as "urpmi.update -a && urpmi mplayer".
Side note on what a kick ass program mplayer is: plays DVDs, mpg, wmv, mov (sorenson!), divx, xvid, on and on and on. Moreover, the low CPU usage is really quite incredible and makes it possible to watch DivX movies on my laptop that absolutely crawl on winders. Good stuff.
It seems like the UI annoyances Jamie Zawinski complains about with Mplayer are really quite trivial when you consider the immense benefits. I'm sure that there is a skin out there that would conform to the UI principles he wants (if not, how hard could it be to roll your own mplayer skin, especially for someone with his skills?). Find it. Use it. Stop complaining.
(OT: can we please cut the "JWZ" crap? Though I admire the things he has done for Linux, I think he seems to take himself a little too seriously, so when I see "JWZ" I'll think shortcut for "gee wiz", not that whining diva)
-- For the love of $DEITY, loose != not win!!!!!
Re:Total disagreement
by
Enahs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Don't ever disregard valuable feedback from an end-user perspective.
I agree, but there's no value to his criticism. No criticism that contains language like "fucktard" is valuable.
And JWZ, the Emacs nut, has the gall to criticize MPlayer for requiring users to remember a few keystrokes. I mean, c'mon, how many Emacs users chuckled when they read that?:-D
And really, how is criticising Ogle because it only plays physical DVDs, when it's stated purpose is simply to play physical DVDs, valuable feedback?
Honestly, I fail to see it. Being told to switch distributions as inevitable as Hitler? I mean, the list of complaints about Red Hat is long. Long, long, long.
And I read through his list of "problems" and didn't find anything that couldn't have been solved by simply asking someone, or reading the documentation.
Honestly, I don't think anyone who used to work at Netscape or had anything to do with XEmacs should have an opinion on usability. Honestly.:-D
-- Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
>You know, some people really shouldn't be using linux. Honest, not trying to be funny or sarcastic; linux is not for everyone.
I know! I mean, someone came to our local LUG meeting using an iBook running Mac OS X! As we were beating the shit out of him, we faintly heard that he uses Linux on his servers, but I think he was just a Commie plant, sent to weaken our resolve.
If we can't keep out the riff-raff, then what good is running Linux? Not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but what if the Dell kid bought a new Dell running Linux? That would be horrible. What if some random CS student somewhere used gcc instead of the free "Introductory" copy of Visual Studio that came in their textbook? Horrible. That person might not really "get it" and instead just be a user.
I'm so glad that Linux is done, and there is no longer any further need for attention on matters like usability. If regular users got a hold of it.. whew. They might be able to use it. We can't have that.
-- ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Re:This guy is way off base
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I agree. The importance of "JWZ" is lost withough knowing a few of his choice quotes...
"Unix sucks. I use it becuase it sucks less then everything else."
and
"Linux is free only if you do not value your time".
He's an edgy glass-half-empty sort. I like his reading and commentary personally, and think its dead on. But I have never let it deture me from anything, he's just wired to compain about things.
Re:From the article... SUCKS.
by
Melantha_Bacchae
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not only is Apple's X server a thing of beauty and a joy forever, but there is also a Carbon version of Emacs for Jaguar. It has many packages including LaTeX, and is as simple to install as the Mac gets. "Enhanced Carbon Emacs" does not require an X server or the Terminal app, as it is a fully native Mac program.
You are not the only one who expected a video editing review. However, I do think the reviewer had some valid points. Some Linux application GUIs and themes can be very hard to use, even if they are cool looking. And Linux application installs still need work if Linux is to be on the desktop of ordinary people. Joe User wouldn't know the difference between apt and RPM.
Such issues need to be brought up and discussed if Linux is to move forward. They could be brought up much more professionally, though...
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
You're an idiot.
by
Wakko+Warner
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
So if I write a huge flame about the state of something in Linux, can I get it posted to Slashdot too?
Maybe, if you're jwz.
You seem to be slightly ignorant of the fact that this "article" is just a rant, one of many on jwz's rants page. When he's pissed off, he writes something there. He's pissed off about the state of multimedia players on linux, and he ought to be. They're a pain in the ass to install, configure, and use. This is a cold, hard fact; jwz just said it better than I could.
- A.P.
-- "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Jamie's writing larger reflect my Linux experience
by
tungwaiyip
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That Linux is flooded with low quality apps.
1. Many apps can't get basic thing done easily (or at all). E.g. Nautilus (a file manager) could crash when copying files.
2. Many GUI are badly designed. They have complex interaction and fail to guide new users to do basic things. Think how many steps are needed to use xcdroast to duplicate a CD. How intimidating it would be to a new user. And how many opportunities for user to do wrong things.
3. Many GUI apps look amateurish. And when some window doesn't fit in a 1024x768 screen this just drive you mad.
4. When an app exhaust my patience I go for a different app. Only to find it have its own set of problem or sucks even more. And then I still can't even get my basic work done.
The enthusiastic crowd of Linux would insist the app works would great if only you do this configure and/or use a different version and/or recompile from source code. We need to get real and have a objective evaluation on the state of art. If we oversold on Linux and it doesn't meet the quality standard for average user it would only damage Linux's image.
Note that after 2 months of frustrating experience and I still in a quixotic attempt to get Linux to work for me. It is only because I'm serious in finding an alternative to MS. If any windoze app give me this kind of crap it will be uninstalled and will never be seen again. (But I think my next machine is going to be a Mac).
Wai Yip Tung
Linux users must hate themselves
by
Space+Coyote
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If I brought home a hardware DV DVD player, set it up on top of my TV, plugged it in and turned it on to find a command prompt and no way to play movies without me going out on the Internet, finding the proper program, in the proper packaging format, compiled for the proper architecture, installing it, then realizing my video hardware isn't configured properly. Having to upgrade my X-windows, and subsequently patch my 'kernel' with some kind of library.. and so on and so on. Well, the girl I brought home to watch a movie with me will have gone off to find something more interesting to do long ago. And said video player would have been thrown out the window.
When I can buy a computer with linux on it and have stuff just work, I'll say it has a chance of being useful for someone rather than a giant time-sucking virus.
Until then, I'll use a Mac.
-- ___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Re:This guy is an idiot
by
Senjutsu
·
· Score: 4, Informative
JWZ should learn how to program and work on his own video player, if he's so unhappy.
So, uh, yeah, JWZ wrote XEmacs (Lucid Emacs), the Unix version of Netscape, and was instrumental in getting the Mozilla project up and running. What the fuck have you done, again?
Does anyone actually play video in a resized window? Surely only "normal" size and fullscreen are ever used? By the way, Windows Media Player up to version 6 at least did the same trick.
Oh, I didn't realize that a shitty "feature" is ok, as long as some old version of windows software did the same thing. After all, the point of any free software project isn't to create an excellent program in its own right, its just to emulate the equivalent windows version, flaws and all, right?
Because of course, mplayer is so hard to remember.
He was responding to the "advice" that to make MPlayer truely usable, he should simply not compile in the UI. You've got to admit, thats a truly, painfully shitty comment on the state of MPlayer's interface. It doesn't matter how easy you think the damn keystrokes are to remember, its still a fucking usability nightmare when the best piece of advice you can get is "Don't even bother to compile the UI"
Perhaps you should read...
by
Pii
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I must admit, I'm a bit of a jwz fanboy. I enjoy a good rant, and he's got a certain gift for it.
Getting back on-topic, I don't know why everybody is so pissed about what he's written. As others have pointed out, it's not like he set out to write "A Comprehensive Review of Video on Linux." The linked "article" was written for his own amusement. Somebody else thought it would be a good idea to submit it to Slashdot. He's merely pointing out that the current state of affairs is pertty sad, and for those of you in the audience with the integrity to state the plain truth, he's correct.
There's not a single Linux video viewer (DVD/or otherwise) that approaches what you'd expect to find in so-called "Commercial software." (That's not to say that all commercial software is good either, but non-intuitive interfaces aside, they generally all work better than most of what's out there for Linux today.)
Other have also ridiculed the tendancy of the developers to make the applications look and feel like A/V equipment. Hard to argue with that. There's no reason a video player needs to look like a physical DVD player. A real DVD player looks the way it does because we operate it here, in the meatspace. It's design is simplistic and somewhat elegant because of the way we interact with it, in 3 dimensions. When this functionality sits on a 2 dimensional screen, it should look and feel like all of the other programs that we're used to using. That's a legitimate gripe.
-- For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Re:Shouldn't rant about things you don't understan
by
jazman_777
·
· Score: 3, Funny
So what if his tone is nasty? His words are what's important, and his words equate to: "Why is this so hard. Make it consistant, make it easy."
Because a nice tone makes for a more civilized world, you absolute idiot moron.
-- Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The whiney little bitch is right
by
nrc
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Like it or not, the whiney little bitch is right. The state of Linux video is pretty dismal. Unfortunately when you rely on geeks scratching an itch to supply your applications you sometimes end up with software only suitble for use by itchy geeks.
Re:This guy is way off base
by
Trepalium
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Except he's right. Video players on Linux do suck. The only real problem is, the brain damage isn't limited to Linux. Virtually every operating system is overrun by these monstrosities of application skinning. The blame probably should lay squarely on WinAMP, which pretty much pioneered the idea of skinning media applications. Everyone's doing it. Everyone from Apple and their Quicktime software, to Microsoft and their Media Player software are doing it. Is it any wonder that Linux developers are doing it, too?
Apple, above all else, should know better, but instead cave into customer demand, and produced Quicktime Player, with an interface that is neither uniform or intuitive. Older versions of Quicktime were not pleasant to use on Windows, but at least they didn't have these disgusting custom widgets.
Then there's Microsoft Media Player. The last useful version was 6.4, which still had a sane, native interface. 7, 8 and 9 all share the 'skinned html' interface, which is difficult to use and slow. Microsoft's only solution to this was to provide a skin that provides poor emulation of the old 6.4 features with non-functional menus and permanently stuck in the extended mode instead of compact.
Real has never been immune to the influence, with even early versions of RealPlayer using custom widgets. Things only got worse with the release of RealOne. Need I say more?
Now, there are applications for Linux, Windows, etc, that do have a decent interface. I'm sure old versions of Quicktime were great to use on MacOS, although they have always been a little cumbersome on Windows because of the menu issue. Windows Media Player 6.4 has served me well for some time when I'm using Microsoft Windows. I liked using XMPS (gnome user interface) on Linux until it stopped being developed. VLC doesn't have a terrible UI, but it doesn't have a great one either.
Perhaps it's just easier to make a pretty bitmap with clickable portions that developing a real usable UI for media applications? Perhaps there's something special about media players that make them immune to normal UI development research? Or have we just become so accustomed to the status quo, that we don't expect any different?
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Uselessness.
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I can figure out a command line. I can type "man foo" or "foo -h" and get a general sense of what I'm supposed to do, and if it's only a matter of a couple flags and args, it may only be twice as long as it would take for me to look at a page of prefs and checked settings.
JWZ is, I believe, somewhat smarter than I am, and far more technically sophisticated, and he's sick of having to do that. He *can*, of course, and if you knew jack shit, you'd know that he probably is much better at programming, unix, and the like than you are, but the point is that like everyone with better things to learn than command line switches if we have to do this with every command in a series of commands that are being piped into each other, we're going to get sick of it - especially with plenty of alternatives (MS, Apple, etc.) available.
A well-designed GUI will present far more information far more quickly than a CLI. Processing visual information is a parallel process - scanning text is a serial one. Looking at a single window, being able to check 6 or 7 checkboxes and hit the "enter" button is more efficient than trying to figure out which of 6 or 7 flags to use, their arguments if necessary, and then enter a string on a command line.
When the software at hand is a media playback software, where you may have to go back and rescan the text and edit the command string if things aren't right, the inefficiences of a CLI are even more striking.
Re:JWZ=Moron WITH No CLUE! I do video on Linux
by
markv242
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Couple of points, before you start feeling too good about yourself. (er, whoops, too late)
- First of all, Jamie was talking about just trying to play video. If he has to do any kind of configuration or compilation at all, he's done too much. Video playing is the easiest thing on the planet! Why is it so damned time-consuming under Linux?
For the rest of your self-praising argument,
- How long did it take you to compile and configure vcr, avilib support, transcode, mpeg2enc, and all the various patches that are required to get your video to record?
- "Also I create videos with a (...) camcorder (...) and Kino (...)"
Congratulations. Kino provides the same functionality that even the shittiest NLE, Adobe Premiere, had in version 1.0 (in... 1994?). Way to be on the cutting edge there.
From the Kino site: "It does not support multiple layers or tracks of video and audio." Huh? How can it be an NLE if it doesn't do more than one track? Have you ever sit in front of an Avid bay and done any kind of real video editing? Because I have news for you: Kino is to a NLE as a Kia is to a Ferrari.
- "I then save to mpeg2 and encode 9kbit video (...)"
I'm going to assume you meant 9Mbit video, because 9kbit video is like looking at an old, worn-out three-quarter-inch reel-to-reel tape from the 1950s. Still, though, let's review: you're shooting with a single-chip camera, importing as a lossy format, editing with a one-track editor, and exporting as a lossy format. Again, way to be on the cutting edge.
...all to do the most basic of tasks, record video from line in and encode to mpeg2?
What you're doing can be done by my eight-year-old cousin on his iMac, using iMovie and iDVD, which (last I checked) doesn't take any time to install, because they come with OS X. And I'd bet the quality of his resulting video is completely superlative to yours, because the tools he's using are actually modern software (where the engineers have spent more than five minutes on the interface).
Jamie needs to bite the bullet and spend the cash for a good Powerbook or G4 tower. Linux on the desktop is dead. It will never get to the level that OS X is currently at. Face the facts.
Woo wooo! The cluetrain has arrived...
by
edunbar93
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"What a grumpy asshole" is the exact phrase used by everyone that recieves complaints about a product, about which they have their heads so far up their asses as to believe that it's perfect in every way.
THIS IS A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT! The louder, noisier, and more obnoxious the complaint, the more the person wants it fixed. If he wanted the product to please die quietly, he wouldn't even bother to complain. He would merely go away. He would let the product die in its own feces like he thinks it ought to. He wouldn't complain, because he doesn't want the product to improve and heave itself out of the pool of shit that it currently sleeps in.
And you know what? In order for this to happen, especially when the producers of said product honestly believe there's nothing wrong, the people making the product in question need to have their egos adjusted, probably in a brutal manner which will leave them lying on the floor in a fetal position, crying for their mommy. I have personally been through this before, so shut up, take the man's advice, and do it right. Stop fucking complaining that he's a mean old man, because believe it or not, he IS helping. He DOES give a damn. And if you're too weak minded to see this and adjust your own damn attitude, you deserve to die by choking on your own shit.
-- "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Slashdot Mirror
For his server?
In Republican America phones tap you.
If you look for reasons to be unhappy with ANYTHING, you'll find them. Why not focus on what's good and what needs to be improved? "This is shit and too big of a pain in the ass to screw with" isn't a particularly exacting or insightful analysis.
...command-line MPlayer works perfectly for me. Aside from that, he certainly lets people know what's wrong with the projects they've spent most of their lives on.
I used to think JWZ was cool. Lucid EMACS, the whole RMS techno-tension thing, his general sense of mightiness.
Now I think he mostly likes to complain about stuff and run his nightclub.
It's probably fun to make lists of things that suck all day long, but why not use some of that talent and nervous energy to join in and help?
I know he poo-poos this idea, but he really should go to OS X. JWZ highly prizes usability, and so do most Mac developers (quicktime viewer aside), so it seems like a good match. He wants xemacs; he can get xemacs with fink and run it on a rootless X server, and thus get the best of both worlds. All the video stuff is likely trivial on a Mac.
And admit it, any time you see someone with hair like his, you immediately think, "Mac user".
Dammit, when you worked at Netscape, JWZ, Navigator sucked ass. Sorry, dude, but Communicator has improved since you had a hissy fit and left.
What, I'm not allowed to criticize the great JWZ?
So do it, JWZ; either put together something that works the way you think it should work, or give up and buy a fucking Mac already.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Finally, somebody who else who is unafraid to point out the stupidity of the interfaces being foisted upon us!
Look, folks - your program is NOT a physical device I can stack in my equipment rack - DON'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONE! It is a PROGRAM! Make it look like a program! I want a simple menu bar across the top of the window. I want that menu bar to follow accepted standard practice - File, Options, Help. I want a minimum of BS - just play the DAMN FILE!
www.eFax.com are spammers
Instead of bitching about OpenSource and free (as in beer) products which have not even reached 1.0 stable release, be nice to the project developpers and make constructive suggestions.
Man! People are such a***oles nowadays. They expect everything for free and delivered on a gold plate. Pffft!
Firstly I don't believe that he wrote this intending for it to be posted to Slashdot: It'd likely be much more politically correct if it were. Having said that, you are not JWZ (nor am I)--The guy was one of the primary developers at Netscape, was a major impetus in getting Mozilla up and going, and then flamed out of Netscape when the suits/AOL took over. You don't have to respect his opinion, but realize that a lot of people do give it credence because he has proven himself in the industry.
The primary point that he seems to be making is what a lot of people feel about Linux/open source: This isn't a hobby for me, so what's the point? For someone for whom it's a hobby, using a command line with reams of intricate command line options is a very reasonable option, but for someone who it isn't they want a clean and clear interface that affords usage in obvious ways (for a media player that of course is for VCR like functionality).
Mainly because he limited himself to RPM's and didnt specify what WM he was using.
.viv files upside down when it plays them.. not sure, and not really bothered by it, but it was something i noticed.
I use both mplayer and gmplayer on Mandrake just fine. It doesnt have resize problems, has resize ability, etc. That _may_ be because Im using windowmaker and/or blackbox, but it seems to work fine in KDE as well. Course, I installed the source for them, and compiled from scratch, after doing all the enable/disable flags the right way for my system.
The only issue Im having with Mplayer right now is it has a tendency to put some
Xine hasnt worked for me since day one.. but i have never tweaked it.. I just think it doesnt like my DVD drive.. as soon as it comes up and tries to hit the drive it locks the system hard.
I dont know what the problem is for this guy, other than the fact that he seems to be RPM happy and he uses RedHat. (which is certainly his prerogative)
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
First of all, installing apt on RedHat doesn't compete to install packages - it uses apt to install RPMs, rather than debs. This means that it will automatically locate RPM dependencies and install them, exactly as a Debian system would. It just adds missing functionality to the RPM system.
It all comes down to people complaining and complaining that they can't do something right away. Why not build a package for mplayer that installs it the way you want? These people are writing software in their free time. You don't have to use it.
"Uh, no. I've seen the horror of Red Hat 8.0, and there's no fucking way I'm putting Gnome2 on any more of my machines for at least another six months, maybe a year."
I can't understand why you would complain about installing dependencies for a product that is still in development. How is software supposed to advance if we're always using v1 of libraries instead of v2?
"What are these fucktards thinking???"
Why do people get off on putting other people's work down? Just because you made a quick buck in an IPO doesn't give you the right to rant about whatever you want and expect people to bow down. Why not write up a bug report or a quick suggestion? Isn't that what we do if something bugs us? That's the beauty of having each access to the application developers! Your riches don't elevate you above the rest of us, my friend.
Don't whine that something doesn't work unless you are willing to fix it or willing switch to an environment that satisfies your needs. I should know better than to read JWZ's blog.
æeee!
Every single person I know who has played video on Linux (except DVDs) with MPlayer fell in love with it. Really, there are only six shortcut keys you need:
.avi's as easily as non-broken ones AND now features Sorenson SVQ4 playback! Hint: keyboard is faster than mouse!
right, up : ffd ffffd
left, down : rev rrev
f : fullscreen
space : pause
That's 99.9% of what I do when I when I play movies and MPlayer does it REALLY well. No smegging around with codecs, plays broken
I'd really like to see this guy giving constructive criticisms. No, don't ask him to criticize my post, NO NO NO!
All that said, if you dont like it the way it is, break out your EMacs, and Write something better, otherwise, quit bitching!
:P
But i was sure EMacs has its own built in movie player
With his gripe about custome interfaces. Xine is a desktop nightmare. Ditto with most of the other multimedia players I've encountered. They sacrifice high-tech intuitive controls for some made-up high-tech LOOK.
I'd rather just be able to find the play button and get the damn thing out of the way.
When I set up a theme on my desktop, I expect it to be constant, even if it's just the default. I understand this means making an app work with KDE or Gnome or whatever, but it seems to me that that's less work that scraping a graphic interface together from scratch. Skins are for the desktop manager, not the apps themselves, IMHO.
Then there's the issue of the half-completed custom interface that jars from one look to another. For instance - why does the XMMS "browse/open" window look so awful? The rest of the app looks very nice, or is at least non-intrusive to my eyeballs. It's small, it's tight, and it looks like other players I'm familiar with. But when I try to open an MP3, I get this horrific, generic, huge freaking window to browse around in. Yuck. XMMS is the #1 recommended playing app, too, but it doesn't seem to fit in with any window manager beyond generic X.
If someone can recommend an MP3 player that just fits my desktop, I'd be ever so grateful.
GMFTatsujin
I've been saying the same things about skinnable interfaces for a while now. I've never found one that is acceptable. Look at xmms and winamp skins. I'd say 70% are just plain ugly, 30% are good to beautify, and 100% (as far as I've seen) are unusable. When they have text at all, they have tiny unreadable fonts. They have buttons that don't look like buttons, and they are bitmapped so you can't resize it like a normal app.
When I got a Mac and started using iTunes, I was a much happier person.
I wonder how much effort was wasted on themes
that only make video players terribly hard to
use. I'v got good eyesight, and I can't even
make out what is what with those damn crapplets.
I just looked at his web page www.jwz.com. With an index page like that, who the hell is he to gripe?
"Maybe he could try developping sommething, since the source code is there."
I just have two things to say to this comment.
1) Shut.
2) Up.
I am so SICK and TIRED of people mistaking the point of open source in this way! I am not a developer. I am not a programmer. I do not have the time, skills, or inclination to write a media player from scratch, or even fix one of the many broken ones. The fact that I (theoretically) CAN get and modify the source doesn't automatically mean that I MUST do so, if I don't like what's out there. It also does not affect the degree to which the existing players suck!
Once again:
1) The openness of the source code doesn't make the current software suck any less.
2) The OSS-given ability to (re)write software is not a de facto requirement to (re)write said software. It does not absolve the original programmers of their responsibilty to write non-crap.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
>JWZ should learn how to program
Implementing Netscape on Unix, and working on Mozilla, doesn't count?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"All that said, if you dont like it the way it is, break out your EMacs, and Write something better, otherwise, quit bitching!
Enough of these stupid reviews, you have all the code of these shitty projects. Rewrite the GUI for one. What? You dont feel like it? Then stop bitching"
And this, right here, is why its going to be a hard, uphill battle for Linux on the desktop...
This is a fact: mplayer just rocks!
It can play just about ANY video file. And it does hell of a job playing! You can switch to fullscreen/back in an instant, even do panning-resizing on the fly (good for viewing 9:16 videos on 3:4 screen), adjust audio/video sync with a key, etc.
Ever tried using windows players? How about playing "bad" avi files, containing no indexes? Media Player, RealOne player all failed on those (well, they do play it, but you can't really seek, or if you can, it's fkkin slow).
Oh, and check that QuickTime player for Windows. It's slow, it's lame, it flickers, you can't resize it or do fullscreen.
I can't say much about mplayer's GUI, because I don't use it, but even that shouldn't be THAT bad. Just compare it to QuickTime or Media Player, which has all that unneccessary crap around the small movie.
I honestly think this is a good review.
Let me start by saying that I use Windows. I've tried Linux several times in the past. I have several thousand reasons why I think Linux is a decade or two from becoming a desktop OS. This review more or less demonstrates that.
There are seldom times when I feel like trying to get a program working for more than 10 or 20 minutes. Linux, while powerful, does not help much in this department. When I'm in a bad mood (much like JWZ is) there's no way I want to fuck around with Linux. Period.
My main problem with Linux, however, is the UIs of both the programs and the desktops. I will refuse to use a program because of the UI. Mplayer may be powerful, but as far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't have a UI, I won't use it. I don't care if there is a command line option, I didn't install KDE or Gnome to make the console look pretty.
I know a lot of you have said, "He can develop his own UI for it." Well, that's not why he installed Linux, and it's not why I did, either. I didn't try it expecting to have to write my own code to get things to run acceptably, I did it because it's an alternative to windows. One of the things that will keep (and has kept) Linux from being a desktop OS are things like this.
This is probably going to be an unpopular post, but oh well.
And guess what? Most people who try Linux don't want to compile or upgrade. They want it to work! This group is growing in size and will soon account for most of the Linux population (if it has not already happened). Most Linux users will be just that, "users" and developers need to start thinking in those terms if they want people to use thier programs and Linux in general.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
1) People don't get off doing that. They're actually saying something about what they don't like. Progress, as you should remember, is not about sitting silently and taking whatever is handed to you. Progress is made by telling someone what's wrong with what they've done. So what if his tone is nasty? His words are what's important, and his words equate to: "Why is this so hard. Make it consistant, make it easy."
2) He has the right to say whatever he wants. Just like you. Besides, attacking his position or money doesn't invalidate or make less important anything he says unless he can be proven to be wrong. Opinions can be tough to validate or invalidate, but in this case, he makes some very specific points about what he thinks is good and what's not. At no point does he say "I have a lot of money, which makes my point more imporant." He has a WEBSITE which makes his voice simply HEARD.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
>>> they want a clean and clear interface that affords usage in obvious ways
>>> (for a media player that of course is for VCR like functionality).
Here's your VCR functionality user interface:
#!/usr/bin/python
import curses, curses.wrapper
def vcr(scr):
scr.addstr('12:00', curses.A_BLINK)
scr.refresh()
raw_input('')
curses.wrapper(vcr)
:)
A few years ago, JWZ used to say that using Linux was OK "as long as your time was worthless"... It's on his web site, you can actually look for it and it's probably there.
So he has made progress! Now he even admits to using Linux! =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I think slashdot did a good job of misleading readers. If you go to the page that lists this 'rant', it clearly states it is a rant. He never claims its an objective review. He posted it on his personal webpage. He likely did not submit this to slashdot to read. Michael accepted it. It was never meant to get posted on slashdot, and problable doesn't warrent being here.
That being said, I think JWZ is more realistic about the usability of Linux than most slashdot readers.
puck
And no, you shouldn't have to rebuild from source just to run something. The Linux world needs to get that straight.
"The primary point that he seems to be making is what a lot of people feel about Linux/open source: This isn't a hobby for me, so what's the point? For someone for whom it's a hobby, using a command line with reams of intricate command line options is a very reasonable option, but for someone who it isn't they want a clean and clear interface that affords usage in obvious ways (for a media player that of course is for VCR like functionality)."
Now you all understand where Windows users come from. A little bit of instability is a small price to pay for an interface that does what you expect.
He's one of the implementors of the original Netscape on Unix/X11, part of the Mozilla team (IIRC he actually named it Mozilla), and part of the original XEmacs team.
Not to mention xscreensaver (which, I think, ships with every Linux distro out there), and a few other cool hacks.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I would normally agree that switching distributions just to get an app (or class of apps) to work is a little nutty, but if you *REALLY* want to play videos, the plf rpms for Mandrake make installing quite a bit of video software for linux super easy (though I imagine there are apt-get repositories that do the same). All you need to do is go here to configure and add a urpmi source from one of the plf mirror sites, and it is literally as easy as "urpmi.update -a && urpmi mplayer".
Side note on what a kick ass program mplayer is: plays DVDs, mpg, wmv, mov (sorenson!), divx, xvid, on and on and on. Moreover, the low CPU usage is really quite incredible and makes it possible to watch DivX movies on my laptop that absolutely crawl on winders. Good stuff.
It seems like the UI annoyances Jamie Zawinski complains about with Mplayer are really quite trivial when you consider the immense benefits. I'm sure that there is a skin out there that would conform to the UI principles he wants (if not, how hard could it be to roll your own mplayer skin, especially for someone with his skills?). Find it. Use it. Stop complaining.
(OT: can we please cut the "JWZ" crap? Though I admire the things he has done for Linux, I think he seems to take himself a little too seriously, so when I see "JWZ" I'll think shortcut for "gee wiz", not that whining diva)
For the love of $DEITY, loose != not win!!!!!
I agree, but there's no value to his criticism. No criticism that contains language like "fucktard" is valuable.
And JWZ, the Emacs nut, has the gall to criticize MPlayer for requiring users to remember a few keystrokes. I mean, c'mon, how many Emacs users chuckled when they read that?
And really, how is criticising Ogle because it only plays physical DVDs, when it's stated purpose is simply to play physical DVDs, valuable feedback?
Honestly, I fail to see it. Being told to switch distributions as inevitable as Hitler? I mean, the list of complaints about Red Hat is long. Long, long, long.
And I read through his list of "problems" and didn't find anything that couldn't have been solved by simply asking someone, or reading the documentation.
Honestly, I don't think anyone who used to work at Netscape or had anything to do with XEmacs should have an opinion on usability. Honestly.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
>You know, some people really shouldn't be using linux. Honest, not trying to be funny or sarcastic; linux is not for everyone.
I know! I mean, someone came to our local LUG meeting using an iBook running Mac OS X! As we were beating the shit out of him, we faintly heard that he uses Linux on his servers, but I think he was just a Commie plant, sent to weaken our resolve.
If we can't keep out the riff-raff, then what good is running Linux? Not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but what if the Dell kid bought a new Dell running Linux? That would be horrible. What if some random CS student somewhere used gcc instead of the free "Introductory" copy of Visual Studio that came in their textbook? Horrible. That person might not really "get it" and instead just be a user.
I'm so glad that Linux is done, and there is no longer any further need for attention on matters like usability. If regular users got a hold of it.. whew. They might be able to use it. We can't have that.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I agree. The importance of "JWZ" is lost withough knowing a few of his choice quotes...
"Unix sucks. I use it becuase it sucks less then everything else."
and
"Linux is free only if you do not value your time".
He's an edgy glass-half-empty sort. I like his reading and commentary personally, and think its dead on. But I have never let it deture me from anything, he's just wired to compain about things.
Not only is Apple's X server a thing of beauty and a joy forever, but there is also a Carbon version of Emacs for Jaguar. It has many packages including LaTeX, and is as simple to install as the Mac gets. "Enhanced Carbon Emacs" does not require an X server or the Terminal app, as it is a fully native Mac program.
You are not the only one who expected a video editing review. However, I do think the reviewer had some valid points. Some Linux application GUIs and themes can be very hard to use, even if they are cool looking. And Linux application installs still need work if Linux is to be on the desktop of ordinary people. Joe User wouldn't know the difference between apt and RPM.
Such issues need to be brought up and discussed if Linux is to move forward. They could be brought up much more professionally, though...
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
So if I write a huge flame about the state of something in Linux, can I get it posted to Slashdot too?
Maybe, if you're jwz.
You seem to be slightly ignorant of the fact that this "article" is just a rant, one of many on jwz's rants page. When he's pissed off, he writes something there. He's pissed off about the state of multimedia players on linux, and he ought to be. They're a pain in the ass to install, configure, and use. This is a cold, hard fact; jwz just said it better than I could.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
That Linux is flooded with low quality apps.
1. Many apps can't get basic thing done easily (or at all). E.g. Nautilus (a file manager) could crash when copying files.
2. Many GUI are badly designed. They have complex interaction and fail to guide new users to do basic things. Think how many steps are needed to use xcdroast to duplicate a CD. How intimidating it would be to a new user. And how many opportunities for user to do wrong things.
3. Many GUI apps look amateurish. And when some window doesn't fit in a 1024x768 screen this just drive you mad.
4. When an app exhaust my patience I go for a different app. Only to find it have its own set of problem or sucks even more. And then I still can't even get my basic work done.
The enthusiastic crowd of Linux would insist the app works would great if only you do this configure and/or use a different version and/or recompile from source code. We need to get real and have a objective evaluation on the state of art. If we oversold on Linux and it doesn't meet the quality standard for average user it would only damage Linux's image.
Note that after 2 months of frustrating experience and I still in a quixotic attempt to get Linux to work for me. It is only because I'm serious in finding an alternative to MS. If any windoze app give me this kind of crap it will be uninstalled and will never be seen again. (But I think my next machine is going to be a Mac).
Wai Yip Tung
If I brought home a hardware DV DVD player, set it up on top of my TV, plugged it in and turned it on to find a command prompt and no way to play movies without me going out on the Internet, finding the proper program, in the proper packaging format, compiled for the proper architecture, installing it, then realizing my video hardware isn't configured properly. Having to upgrade my X-windows, and subsequently patch my 'kernel' with some kind of library.. and so on and so on. Well, the girl I brought home to watch a movie with me will have gone off to find something more interesting to do long ago. And said video player would have been thrown out the window.
When I can buy a computer with linux on it and have stuff just work, I'll say it has a chance of being useful for someone rather than a giant time-sucking virus.
Until then, I'll use a Mac.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
JWZ should learn how to program and work on his own video player, if he's so unhappy.
So, uh, yeah, JWZ wrote XEmacs (Lucid Emacs), the Unix version of Netscape, and was instrumental in getting the Mozilla project up and running. What the fuck have you done, again?
Does anyone actually play video in a resized window? Surely only "normal" size and fullscreen are ever used? By the way, Windows Media Player up to version 6 at least did the same trick.
Oh, I didn't realize that a shitty "feature" is ok, as long as some old version of windows software did the same thing. After all, the point of any free software project isn't to create an excellent program in its own right, its just to emulate the equivalent windows version, flaws and all, right?
Because of course, mplayer is so hard to remember.
He was responding to the "advice" that to make MPlayer truely usable, he should simply not compile in the UI. You've got to admit, thats a truly, painfully shitty comment on the state of MPlayer's interface. It doesn't matter how easy you think the damn keystrokes are to remember, its still a fucking usability nightmare when the best piece of advice you can get is "Don't even bother to compile the UI"
I must admit, I'm a bit of a jwz fanboy. I enjoy a good rant, and he's got a certain gift for it.
Getting back on-topic, I don't know why everybody is so pissed about what he's written. As others have pointed out, it's not like he set out to write "A Comprehensive Review of Video on Linux." The linked "article" was written for his own amusement. Somebody else thought it would be a good idea to submit it to Slashdot. He's merely pointing out that the current state of affairs is pertty sad, and for those of you in the audience with the integrity to state the plain truth, he's correct.
There's not a single Linux video viewer (DVD/or otherwise) that approaches what you'd expect to find in so-called "Commercial software." (That's not to say that all commercial software is good either, but non-intuitive interfaces aside, they generally all work better than most of what's out there for Linux today.)
Other have also ridiculed the tendancy of the developers to make the applications look and feel like A/V equipment. Hard to argue with that. There's no reason a video player needs to look like a physical DVD player. A real DVD player looks the way it does because we operate it here, in the meatspace. It's design is simplistic and somewhat elegant because of the way we interact with it, in 3 dimensions. When this functionality sits on a 2 dimensional screen, it should look and feel like all of the other programs that we're used to using. That's a legitimate gripe.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Because a nice tone makes for a more civilized world, you absolute idiot moron.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Like it or not, the whiney little bitch is right. The state of Linux video is pretty dismal. Unfortunately when you rely on geeks scratching an itch to supply your applications you sometimes end up with software only suitble for use by itchy geeks.
Apple, above all else, should know better, but instead cave into customer demand, and produced Quicktime Player, with an interface that is neither uniform or intuitive. Older versions of Quicktime were not pleasant to use on Windows, but at least they didn't have these disgusting custom widgets.
Then there's Microsoft Media Player. The last useful version was 6.4, which still had a sane, native interface. 7, 8 and 9 all share the 'skinned html' interface, which is difficult to use and slow. Microsoft's only solution to this was to provide a skin that provides poor emulation of the old 6.4 features with non-functional menus and permanently stuck in the extended mode instead of compact.
Real has never been immune to the influence, with even early versions of RealPlayer using custom widgets. Things only got worse with the release of RealOne. Need I say more?
Now, there are applications for Linux, Windows, etc, that do have a decent interface. I'm sure old versions of Quicktime were great to use on MacOS, although they have always been a little cumbersome on Windows because of the menu issue. Windows Media Player 6.4 has served me well for some time when I'm using Microsoft Windows. I liked using XMPS (gnome user interface) on Linux until it stopped being developed. VLC doesn't have a terrible UI, but it doesn't have a great one either.
Perhaps it's just easier to make a pretty bitmap with clickable portions that developing a real usable UI for media applications? Perhaps there's something special about media players that make them immune to normal UI development research? Or have we just become so accustomed to the status quo, that we don't expect any different?
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
JWZ is, I believe, somewhat smarter than I am, and far more technically sophisticated, and he's sick of having to do that. He *can*, of course, and if you knew jack shit, you'd know that he probably is much better at programming, unix, and the like than you are, but the point is that like everyone with better things to learn than command line switches if we have to do this with every command in a series of commands that are being piped into each other, we're going to get sick of it - especially with plenty of alternatives (MS, Apple, etc.) available.
A well-designed GUI will present far more information far more quickly than a CLI. Processing visual information is a parallel process - scanning text is a serial one. Looking at a single window, being able to check 6 or 7 checkboxes and hit the "enter" button is more efficient than trying to figure out which of 6 or 7 flags to use, their arguments if necessary, and then enter a string on a command line.
When the software at hand is a media playback software, where you may have to go back and rescan the text and edit the command string if things aren't right, the inefficiences of a CLI are even more striking.
- First of all, Jamie was talking about just trying to play video. If he has to do any kind of configuration or compilation at all, he's done too much. Video playing is the easiest thing on the planet! Why is it so damned time-consuming under Linux?
For the rest of your self-praising argument,
- How long did it take you to compile and configure vcr, avilib support, transcode, mpeg2enc, and all the various patches that are required to get your video to record?
- "Also I create videos with a (...) camcorder (...) and Kino (...)"
Congratulations. Kino provides the same functionality that even the shittiest NLE, Adobe Premiere, had in version 1.0 (in... 1994?). Way to be on the cutting edge there.
From the Kino site: "It does not support multiple layers or tracks of video and audio." Huh? How can it be an NLE if it doesn't do more than one track? Have you ever sit in front of an Avid bay and done any kind of real video editing? Because I have news for you: Kino is to a NLE as a Kia is to a Ferrari.
- "I then save to mpeg2 and encode 9kbit video (...)"
I'm going to assume you meant 9Mbit video, because 9kbit video is like looking at an old, worn-out three-quarter-inch reel-to-reel tape from the 1950s. Still, though, let's review: you're shooting with a single-chip camera, importing as a lossy format, editing with a one-track editor, and exporting as a lossy format. Again, way to be on the cutting edge.
- "This is TOO simple."
I question your definition of simple. Check:
- Compile
- Find driver
- Compile
- Compile
- Install
- Try to find package
- Compile
- Install
- Cross fingers
- Compile
- Install
What you're doing can be done by my eight-year-old cousin on his iMac, using iMovie and iDVD, which (last I checked) doesn't take any time to install, because they come with OS X. And I'd bet the quality of his resulting video is completely superlative to yours, because the tools he's using are actually modern software (where the engineers have spent more than five minutes on the interface).
Jamie needs to bite the bullet and spend the cash for a good Powerbook or G4 tower. Linux on the desktop is dead. It will never get to the level that OS X is currently at. Face the facts.
"What a grumpy asshole" is the exact phrase used by everyone that recieves complaints about a product, about which they have their heads so far up their asses as to believe that it's perfect in every way.
THIS IS A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT! The louder, noisier, and more obnoxious the complaint, the more the person wants it fixed. If he wanted the product to please die quietly, he wouldn't even bother to complain. He would merely go away. He would let the product die in its own feces like he thinks it ought to. He wouldn't complain, because he doesn't want the product to improve and heave itself out of the pool of shit that it currently sleeps in.
And you know what? In order for this to happen, especially when the producers of said product honestly believe there's nothing wrong, the people making the product in question need to have their egos adjusted, probably in a brutal manner which will leave them lying on the floor in a fetal position, crying for their mommy. I have personally been through this before, so shut up, take the man's advice, and do it right. Stop fucking complaining that he's a mean old man, because believe it or not, he IS helping. He DOES give a damn. And if you're too weak minded to see this and adjust your own damn attitude, you deserve to die by choking on your own shit.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert