Slashdot Mirror
Decent DVD-Ripping Solution For Linux?
supersloshy writes "I'm a user of Ubuntu Linux and I have been for a little while now. Recently I've been trying to copy DVDs onto a portable media player, but everything I've tried isn't working right. dvd::rip always gets the language mixed up (for example, when ripping 'Howl's Moving Castle,' one of the files it ripped to was in Japanese instead of English), Acidrip just plain isn't working for me (not recognizing a disc with spaces in its name, refusing to encode, etc.), Thoggen is having trouble with chapters (chapter 1 repeated twice for me once), and OGMRip has the audio out of sync. What I'm looking for is a reliable program to copy the movie into a single file with none of the audio or video glitches as mentioned above. Is there even such thing on Linux? If you can't think of a decent Linux-based solution, then a Windows one is fine as long as it works."
BitTorrent. Its probably faster and definitely easier.
I don't think the "Let me google that for you" joke applies when you add a different keyword in.
I can't say I'm an obsessive purist
Then what IS the reason? I run Linux exclusively, and I independently reached the same conclusion as AC: The best Linux DVD ripper is DVDFab.
If DVDFab isn't a "Linux solution" because it requires WINE, then KDE isn't a Linux solution because it requires Qt.
The 1990s called: they want their benchmarks back.
That's Linux for you and the reason why I switched to a Mac. Linux is a fantastic OS but many of the applications that run on it are just not mature enough to be used by laymen.
-- Cheers!
If the issue was an ffmpeg or VLC issue, then that would qualify as a dependency issue. The newer VLC should have required the newer ffmpeg. If, however, it was an Ubuntu packaging naming issue, I completely blame proprietary Linux packaging for that.
This is one of the many reasons Linux packaging standards are needed. Distros should be offering the same exact software that you can get easily online. If they want to modify a program, they need to change it's name, but if it's simply distros having different package names then they need to fucking stop it. Metapackages are fine, but fucking around with software names just so you can make your repository be proprietary is wrong. Until Linux users are really free to choose what software to install no matter their distro, and the focus is shifted to making the default software work correctly for all Linux users, you sadly will have more freedom in some ways on a proprietary OS.
Thank you distro wars for giving everyone less freedom and making Linux suck more.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
It's probably likely that the problems he was having in this case was the tipping point of a long series of personal annoyances. What this story seems to illustrate is that Linux is still in the rough Harley Davidson stage, in that almost every Harley Davidson owner I ever met was a fairly decent mechanic as the cycles are famous for requiring a lot of mechanic knowhow. One respondent's answer in brief was "compile your own". While this works for a certain group of user, there are a lot of users which it won't. With Mac OSX now having a lot more common with the 'Nix OS's and featuring software which simply "just works". I can understand why he finally made the switch. (OS X even has it's own versions of WINE working for it now that it's main architecture is Intel based.) and OS X has shed most of what made the original Mac OS such a hostile environment to develop for, as seen from the explosion open source code for the platform. "Stuff just works" is a good benchmark on the maturity of an OS as a user system for other than "Harley Davidson home mechanics." OS X is a good example of that benchmark as a UNIX type OS you can give your grandmother to use. Linux's progress towards that goal has slowed down considerably if not stopped altogether.
But why are dependencies a problem? The reason is because *those* packages are proprietary. If a package used a universal naming convention, like the actual names of the programs the developers named them, then a program could simply say "I want this, this, and this" and the manager would know what the hell they wanted and install it all easily. Distro repositories should be nothing more than mirrors of sourceforge basically, for the packages they wanted to support, but it should be able to hook into the outside world to pull dependencies when users wanted/needed those. If I wanted, I shouldn't HAVE to install Firefox updates from distro repos, I should be able to get system updates directly from Mozilla. Bad example as Mozilla actually does have a Ubuntu repo, but that's proprietary, I want universal formats so that ALL Linux users can easily install, remove, and update any and all Linux software they want.
A Mandriva user shouldn't have to install Ubuntu just because OMGAwsomeGame version 5.125.53.325 that they want or need for some reason isn't in Mandriva's repos. These distro companies aren't caring about this problem because they want the size of their repos to *cause* this to happen, for users to switch just for their access to software. That barrier is opposed to Linux's principals and to truly free software. Not to mention, you know, it makes Linux *suck*. Unless you use Ubuntu. But even then, things still suck, and user's freedoms are very much lessened.
And of course again, yeah yeah, you can compile, but only like 5% of users really care about that, and they're mostly developers. Linux needs more features, and this is a big one. Software packages "just work" on Windows and OS X, Linux users can and should have that same freedom, and there is no reason whatsoever that it's not possible and can't be solved through better programming and standards.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.