Slashdot Mirror
Lack of Manpower May Kill VLC For Mac
plasmacutter writes "The Video Lan dev team has recently come forward with a notice that the number of active developers for the project's MacOS X releases has dropped to zero, prompting a halt in the release schedule. There is now a disturbing possibility that support for Mac will be dropped as of 1.1.0. As the most versatile and user-friendly solution for bridging the video compatibility gap between OS X and windows, this will be a terrible loss for the Mac community. There is still hope, however, if the right volunteers come forward."
The DVD player that comes with Apple's computers is rather intolerant of scratches, etc., and will report "Skipping damaged area..." then skip ahead a ridiculous amount. VLC will play fine right through the supposedly damaged segment. Losing VLC for the Mac would be terrible. If I knew anything about programming, I'd think about joining this project.
Apple is poised to take over the whole video world in the next year. It'll be windows that needs the fancy VLC to watch Mac-made movies
There's going to be a million and two volunteers now since this is ./'d
Sad to see VLC struggling, but there's always Mplayer OSX Extended for the mac. Get the extra codec pack and it can play anything!
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
Whoever takes the job, please remove the stupid "anything I want to play gets added to a stupid playlist" thing. When I open a video with QuickTime, it plays that video. If I open another video at the same time, it opens up another QuickTime window.
VLC is more like QuickTime (video player) but it currently acts more like iTunes (media library player).
Let's remember that Handbrake uses VLC for video decoding. No more VLC = no more handbrake.
Not exactly... Apple has been slowly squeezing the Carbon (std. C++ lib set) into non-existence, which means you get to do it in Cocoa (that is, Obj-C). IIRC, there's no 64-bit Carbon love in SL, though the 32-bit Carbon libs should still be happily intact.
There's also (IIRC) Grand Central to contend with when you're dinking around with video, and I doubt that you could find an easy parallel for that when porting in from *nix.
Been way the hell too long (something like 4 years) since I've had to do any serious OSX stuff though, so take all of this with a block of salt.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
What is this walled garden that you speak of?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I thought Handbrake uses FFMPEG. Anyway, if Handbrake uses some VLC code then the Handbrake developers will probably continue to maintain that code without necessarily having to maintain VLC as a whole.
I'm not at all a fan of iTunes, but your post is totally full of false information!
Hard to find something that would burn CDs--sounds like you're talking about an all-in-one program? because it's built into the operating system. It's built into iTunes. The most famous and longlived 3rd party program is Toast. Can install commandline tools as well.
The reason iTunes has a library interface is that...that's the entire point of itunes! If you just want to play a media file once, use Quicktime/vlc/mplayer/Audion/etc. Secondly on this note, iTunes by no means compels you to either consolidate your files under its library or rename your existing files. The directory names are hardly cryptic??
I do, however, agree that losing vlc would be too bad, because I fount it usually worked better than mplayer on the Mac.
Make a burn folder. Drop files in burn folder. Put in blank [CD|DVD]. Hit Burn.
I've had my mac since 2006 and it has always had the ability to burn discs built in.
I'm sorry the world has moved on from storing music in [artist]_[album]-[track#]-[trackname].mp3 but metadata is a wee bit more handy and convenient for sorting music collections and playlists.
But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.
Step 1: Tell iTunes not to manage my library.
Step 2: Drag the 30GB "music" folder from the fileserver onto iTunes and wait for it to index everything.
Step 3: Have easy access to all my music, with not a file moved or renamed.
There are plenty of reasons why you might not like iTunes, but if you're 'leet enough not to like the way it handles your files, then you're 'leet enough to tell it not to.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.
The feature you speak of can be turned off. Your music can be in one place or as many places as you like (even on removable storage). Most people, however, like the convenience of having all their music in one place which is managed automatically. "Most people" makes for a reasonable default. I also find it odd you categorize apple's naming scheme as "cryptic" given the scheme is artist/album/track, the filenames of which are not renamed as you claim. While my files are in different folders now, all of them retain the same filenames. Also, iTunes store's music no longer has DRM.
Actually I think that VLC has moved to QT for the interface so the GUI should port
I doubt that QT provides the video and audio abstraction needed. VLC does things like directly use the SPDIF, which is pretty low-level.
No, I will not work for your startup
Yeah. Dang Apple for preventing GrandCentral use anywhere else. Imagine how cool it would be if another OS were to pick up the technology and Implement it.
Blast Apple and all their closed source stuff.
Are you really joking? VLC is the most successful open source project on Mac, forever. It even beats Firefox.
Here is a top sw downloads listing from absolutely general user focused download site: http://www.macupdate.com/popular/
VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.
VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success. Imagine you are a multimedia developer, is there anything more visible and easy to contribute than VLC? Get a CVS pwd, start showing off with your coding capabilities... Really interesting... I suspect some bad treatment to Mac users/Developers going on. BTW, they should look at pure numbers, not some troll/idiot comments from some download sites or blogs. They are currently de facto standard multimedia player on OS X. They should figure this fact if not already.
PS: Not a big VLC fan really while it saves us all the time at TV. I personally use Coreplayer OS X which is really really unpopular and commercial application which does amazing things like playing 720P HD/H264 on G4 1.42 Ghz.
For plugins like Flash and high end commercial games, engine conversion, FreeBSD is irrelevant. What I talk about is something which will run under MS Visual Studio based development environment, whatever game developers/plugin developers use.
Of course, FreeBSD will have GC just like they have launchd but it won't really matter to some game developer or a plugin developer like Adobe.
I wanted to respond directly to the person who put this post up, but I don't want to register for yet another forum.
I'll gladly help develop for the project. My knowledge in video and audio processing is very weak (I took a class on it, but I didn't really put too much work into it), but my skills in C and C++ are pretty good (but not expert). I'm also pretty well-versed in Java, though it's been a while since I needed to whip it out. Finally, I'm slowly, but surely, learning Objective-C.
Please e-mail me at the address listed here. I don't want to see this die! I just migrated over to OS X and find this app extremely helpful, especially from my use of it in Windows.
(This message may be seen as inflammatory, but I assure you that it is just my opinion and not particularly anybody else---I don't speak for the projects on which I participate).
Hi.
I am not a developer of VLC, but I am part of the LAME team (that MP3 encoder that a good amount of people use). I see similar problems regarding LAME as those described by the VLC team: lack of continuous power and resources.
Some users just magically think that "oh, this program won't exist anymore, so let's use this other one". The sad thing here is that they are shortsighted in the fact that they, by doing nothing (just receiving the programs), are not giving the incentive for the projects.
What about if the proposed alternative dies a few days from now? The amount of alternatives is finite.
Not only that, but the major players out there all share the same codebase: there are "incestuous" (in a good sene of the word) relations with VLC, xine, and mplayer: the all use, to some extent or another (well, in some cases, to the full extent) some common libraries: ffmpeg, libmp3lame, theora, vorbis, dirac, x264 and so on.
Usually, also, the players also send some feedback to the people writing the libraries and, without them, the libraries would not be as good as they are. And the feedback that developers provide is, not infrequently, in form of patches, or constructive suggestions. Some users, like the one above, just cares less and, honestly, where would you just "grab the extra codec" if they all, come, essentially, from the first place?
If you didn't know, perhaps it is a good reminder to put here that people from the VLC project developed the nice libdvdcss library, which benefited xine and mplayer, while people in the other projects have directly or indirectly benefited the others.
I would not like to have the "Linux desktop" mainstream with a "community" with a person that doesn't want a community. For people that are more altruistic (and that show it, instead of just playing in slashdot all day), I am open to a more open talk.
[Gee, from what I wrote the above, it seems like if I only saw Linux---I actually value the other Unix-like operating systems as much].
I guess that what I meant to say here is: "Talk is cheap. Show me the code. Don't wish the death of what you may proudly use and not even know".
Regards, Rogério Brito.
I'm sure you're just going to yell "FANBOI FANBOI FANBOI" at me, but seriously, if you want to use 'mv' and 'cp' to manage your files, why did you think a GUI music library program was going to be useful to you at all? Also, if you're so leet, how come you didn't figure out that you can turn off their file management features? Is it because they didn't give you a CLI tool to edit the pref file?
There are very few Open Source developers for OSX. Unfortunately we, AbiWord, have exactly the same issue. We *almost* had version 2.8 ready for OSX but we lost our lead OSX developer and there is no one to replace him. Rather than delay 2.8, we simply went ahead with 2.8 for Linux and Windows.
I couldn't get OS X to use VLC by default. Selecting "open with" VLC ALWAYS only works for that single file, not the file type, despite it saying so.
To set a default application for a file type in OS X, you do the following:-
Right click on any MKV file and choose 'Get Info'
In the 'Open With' section, choose VLC
Click the 'Change All...' button underneath.
All MKV files will now open by default in VLC
So, basically, you're mad that it won't play your pirated movies out of the box? I've got karma to burn, so time to feed the trolls.
Yeah, I'm going to assume that you really have no idea how the encoder/decoder market works or video production in general. Basically, there are companies that create codecs like DivX and then require payment to encode and distribute videos using their codec because of patents. In order for Apple to ship DivX, they would have to license DivX from DivX. Why should apple pay the licensing fee when they can direct users here: http://www.divx.com/en/mac and the user can download and install for free? I mean the last time I dealt with Windows I remember having to go and fetch the DivX Codec. And the last time I set up a new Mac, QuickTime popped up when it could find the Codec, knew what kind of file it was, and provided a link to the Divx site to go download it. All of this has to do with Licensing. It's really more of a legal issue than a technical one. So how is software licensing and patents preventing them from shipping every codec known to man Apple's fault again? Because unlike a lot of F/OSS projects, Apple can't be 100% based out of Hungry or France to circumvent these licensing restrictions. The do business in the United States and other countries that do recognize and enforce these copyright treaties. Technically, downloading and using VLC and FFMPEG in the United States constitutes infringement on various Codec patents, but that's a topic for another thread and another day. Also I would check on Windows. If it shipped with DivX, chances are that was added by the PC vender in a 3rd party deal, not by Microsoft. (Actually I don't pay attention to who is licensing what these days).
MKV isn't a format, it's a container. Just like .MOV is a container as is .AVI. The quality inside a .MKV, .AVI, or .MOV is all dependent upon the compression and codecs used not the container format. And the last time I tried playing MKV files, the program took up WAY too many system resources. The only place that I've seen MKV as a popular format is with Azurus/Vuze. In fact, I've never seen it used outside of Vuze. Occasionally you'll see it in a torrent, but they are mostly DivX/Avi.
The fact that macs can't play Blu-Ray or HD-DVD has to do with the fact that Apple doesn't ship any models with said player. MAC LACKS THE HARDWARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO READ EITHER FORMAT That has nothing to do with Quicktime and Codecs. When I worked in video production, nobody was adopting either optical format. It was clear to many of us that Optical Media was going the way of the floppy disk and this was in 2003. By the time HD-DVD or Blu-Ray won the format wars, it would be too late, we'd see everything delivered via a digital stream. The only question was, is it going to be an iTunes like store where you buy the item to a set top box/hard drive or whether it was going to be via streaming like Hulu or Netflix. So far it looks like there is a market for both. But time will tell.
And I see a lot of people electing to skip the Blu-Ray player in favor of a media PC/Mac hooked up to their TV and streaming Netflix or Hulu to their TV. I've been using a Mac MIni for this purpose since 2005. I know I have. To me, the extra quality for twice the price of a DVD plus the cost of the player isn't worth it to me. I'll put up with watching my TV shows from Hulu when I have extra time at my connivence, even if the quality isn't the same as on HD. It' good enough for me and plenty of other people too.
Now, I have to say that I'm generally happy with Quicktime X. Quicktime had been languishing for years and this was a much needed up date. It runs faster and smoother than the previous versions.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Perian+Quicktime is awful for Matroska. Really, I wouldn't bother. See the first FAQ under http://perian.org/#support
Wow, what are you smoking?
Wait, Quicktime is your example of a successful "professional" Apple tool?
You're being sarcastic, right? C'mon, stop playing...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work)
Wow, what are you smoking?
Depends on what he means by "owns", and ignoring the hyperbole (the "serious work" part is especially egregious, just like when "business" or gamers make the same claim in reverse), he's got a point. The programming one is a bit confusing, but the others are pretty accurate.
Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime
Wait, Quicktime is your example of a successful "professional" Apple tool?
You're being sarcastic, right? C'mon, stop playing...
If he means QuickTime, then he's correct. Odds are any movie you see and song you hear made its way through QuickTime.
If instead he means the QuickTime Player, then his point really depends on the point of view. From the point of a view of a video player that has a "swiss army knife" utility to it, VLC tramples QuickTime Player, but in terms of both UI, and quality of the codecs it does support, QuickTime Player handily beats VLC. This is on the Mac, of course. On Windows, I suspect the UI aspect isn't as starkly contrasted, and while QuickTime Player may be more polished than VLC, VLC is more Windows-ish.
FYI:
Quicktime is more than a player. It is a massive video library (with a larger code base than windows 95) used to power video editing etc. Its OLD and used to be the basis of nearly all video editing software. It has gotten stale and others have replaced it but it was the foundation for digital video for many years and its still around being used for this.
The quicktime file format is the basis of the mp4 file format as well.
It is a solid library with a lot of extendability for its size, age, and complexity - its in C and I've coded for it a little bit... like 10 years ago.
What I see now is alternatives usually built around a single format library with an import/export system added on. This makes those easier to implement while quicktime has been open ended and not tied to any 1 format (other than its own container format) the timecode in quicktime is confusing because its not a video time code but an abstraction.
Basically apple dropped the ball when they didn't open source the library years ago (and they did ask for public input for a short period without much attention given to it) now we have MKV containers and the zombee avi containers and many specialized libraries.
Not much out there as far as I've seen that competes with the power of quicktime. It could have been the framework but it looks like mkv will be the open container and somebody will tie together enough libraries and codecs into a generalized framework--- or we'll just have to jam it all together ourselves. (which may not be any more difficult than trying to understand the old quicktime C API...)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Depends on what he means by "owns", and ignoring the hyperbole (the "serious work" part is especially egregious, just like when "business" or gamers make the same claim in reverse), he's got a point. The programming one is a bit confusing, but the others are pretty accurate.
No, they aren't. High-performance computing most certainly isn't a strong area for Apple, with Linux being probably the most used platform and other Unix systems and Windows coming somewhere behind. While Macs are certainly used for some scientific modeling and visualisation tasks, I'm not aware of a particularly market share, definitely not to the point of "owning" the market.
In the end, the only item on his list that stands is "design", with a lot of programmers also using Macs nowadays but I wouldn't say they dominate at that either.
Because "true Apple lovers" are mostly either multimedia designers, artists, writers or just ordinary users with more money than sense, and not down-in-the-trenches C/C++ developers?
I guess you must not be a "down-in-the-trenches" developer either. Or else your head is so far down in the "trenches" you have not been to any kind of technical conference, where a large number of people have mac laptops (including many Windows technical conferences).
So where have all of the Mac developers gone? I wonder what massive upswing in calls for Mac capable developers might have happened in the last few years that might have drawn people off the project?
Basically, to my mind you need look no further than the iPhone to figure out what has taken the wind out of many small projects in regards to Mac development.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not exactly... Apple has been slowly squeezing the Carbon (std. C++ lib set) into non-existence, which means you get to do it in Cocoa (that is, Obj-C).
Objective C / C++ is only required for doing the UI. 99% of your project can remain in C or C++ with only a very thin shim in Obj-C for the UI layer. There is no requirement to move your code base to except for the Mac-specific UI layer.
IIRC, there's no 64-bit Carbon love in SL, though the 32-bit Carbon libs should still be happily intact.
There is no 64 bit Carbon, because it's a relic. Cocoa easily mixes with C code (Obj-C is just C with extra stuff). Unless you're Adobe and you have a huge amount of UI code in Carbon, there is no reason to keep hanging on to it.
There's also (IIRC) Grand Central to contend with when you're dinking around with video, and I doubt that you could find an easy parallel for that when porting in from *nix.
Grand Central Dispatch is not required for video at all. Mac OS X supports the standard POSIX pthreads interface for threading.
I know it doesn't do hardware acceleration (not supported at all in OS X yet) but I used to shoot and edit 1080i material (circa 2007/8) in XDCAM HD and it works just fine, and that's the XDCAM HD raw, AIC, H.264 and HDV formats.
The mpeg2 codec for quicktime costs extra from Apple (license issue, even though the DVD player app that ships with OS X plays mpeg2 already, crazy) - Windows does not come with native mpeg2 playback either for the same license reason.
Hardware accelerated video is a relatively new phenomenon outside of niche applications (like the old school Media 100 system I used to work on - 300Mhz of mayhem with hardware acceleration), and if it's not addressed soon I'm sure there will be problems, but right now it's not the be all and end all unless you're trying to make a media box with a beefy card and weak CPU - I expect the issue will be sorted when the Apple TV finally gets updated.
> Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff
> like Quicktime because it has an order of magnitude superior design, usability,
> security and testing behind it.
Is that why people install VLC on MacOS so that they can deal with the formats and
codecs that Apple has chosen to ignore for one bullsh*t reason or another?
Without VLC and ffmpeg, it would be Mac users that are "left out in the cold".
The idea that Quicktime is something that the users of other platforms should covet
is a big fat joke.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.