Slashdot Mirror


VLC Running Kickstarter Campaign To Fund Native Windows 8 App

New submitter aaron44126 writes "Some VLC developers have launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund the development of a native port of VLC as a Windows 8 app. The goal is to create an app with a UI that fits into the rest of the Windows 8 ecosystem that supports the playback of all of the types of files that VLC already supports. Playback of optical media (DVD/VCD/BD) is also on the list. They hope to use as much existing code as possible while doing whatever necessary to get VLC running in the 'Metro' environment and meet Microsoft's requirements for distribution through the Windows Store. Porting to ARM so that it can run on Windows RT devices will happen after the Windows 8 app is complete. The campaign has actually been going on for almost two weeks but they published their first update yesterday, in which they announced their intent to produce a Windows Phone 8 port as well."

161 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Win 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not going to contribute. Not because I don't like VLC, I do. But because I don't support windows 8.

    1. Re:Win 8 by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My thought, exactly. I saw it almost immediately after it went life. I've backed more than 400 crowd-funded projects. I dig VLC. I use VLC all the time. I understand the desire to spread VLC to everyone, everywhere. However, I can't bring myself to chip in even a few bucks to a project that just encourages Windows 8 and the Windows 8-style environment and presentation, which I'd like to see die as soon as possible, so they'll have more reason to get their sanity back for Windows 9, sooner.

      Maybe I'm being petulant, but at least I'm not contributing to Windows 8.

    2. Re:Win 8 by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      that was the first thing I was thinking as well - this isn't even a benefit for anyone other than those in windows 8. Also, GPL (even V2) in windows for things that go in the actual windows store seems pretty much impossible.

    3. Re:Win 8 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's organise a kickstarter to pay VLC to NOT develop for Windows 8.

      I wonder if there's been anything like that before? Crowdsourced compensation for dropping an opportunity?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:Win 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 is the flagship product of the 4th largest corporation in the world. What are you guys trying to do, stop the economy?

    5. Re:Win 8 by Seumas · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I wasn't always opposed to Windows 8 and I generally look forward to new operating systems of all flavors with excitement. The same way I look toward new game consoles and new video cards. It wasn't until I was able to try it for myself that I soured on it. True, you can (more or less) have a (primarily) Windows 7 experience. However, it's still too Frankenstein-ish. I don't like the bland look, the focus on single-application interfaces, the Live-tie-in, and the touch-focus.

      That said, even if they refused to change most of these things in Windows 9, simply getting rid of the stitched-together stuff would be an improvement so it was all one thing or all another and even with a touch-focus, it would ideally more properly wrap the new style around more traditional input methods for people not looking to have an iPad "one thing at a time" experience.

      This is the image that popped into my head, when I tried Windows 8.

      I don't expect Windows 9 to take an entirely new direction and shrug off all these changes that they seem to be pivoting the entire company around, but I believe it will be more refined, more targeted, and less schizophrenic. I want to see a change to that as quickly as possible and I think that a lack of community and developer support of Windows 7 would only drive the urgency of that focus and production to Microsoft.

      There are a lot of things VLC could work on that I'd chip in $10 or $20 for, but Windows 8 isn't one of them (even though I'm sure they would justify it as a necessary thing, to maintain the continued relevance of VLC through Windows 8 and into the next iteration of the OS beyond it).

    6. Re:Win 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes?

    7. Re:Win 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because Microsoft will automatically drop Windows 8 because VLC doesn't have a stable app for it.

      Sad thing is, lots of people will use Windows 8 because that's what's installed on their shiny new PC. They don't want to learn a new OS, they don't want to learn how to revert to Windows 7 and they don't want to put their shiny new computer in the closet until Windows 9 comes out. They just want their fucking videos to play properly, today.

      The VideoLAN crew are pragmatic folks, they want their open-source player to run on as many platforms as possible. It's more accessible and they'll increase their player's usage. They don't care that Microsoft execs like to kill puppies in the spare time, or the ghost of Steve Jobs is trying to pour concrete over developers who aren't plugged into the app store. They want to release an open source player that plays your videos properly, today.

      The day they give in to principal over practicality will be a sad day indeed.

    8. Re:Win 8 by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      so they'll have more reason to get their sanity back for Windows 9, sooner.

      Metro-style apps won't be going away. They will almost surely work better and integrate better over time. But Microsoft has committed its future to supporting tablets, phones, and PCs using the same operating system.

      If you are hoping Windows 9 will be Windows 7 with more polish, you are dreaming of something that will never happen.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    9. Re:Win 8 by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      They don't want to learn a new OS

      Wouldn't that apply to Windows 8?

    10. Re:Win 8 by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Many not adopting Vista didn't stop the economy. Heck I'd say not adopting it is more likely to have helped the economy Vista being so crap when it was launched. So same goes for not adopting Windows 8.

      Broken windows don't really help the economy.

      --
    11. Re:Win 8 by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Let's remember that they're asking us for donations to help develop a Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 version of VLC. You need a convincing reason to get my money and "Windows 8!" isn't compelling enough for me or a number of other people.

    12. Re:Win 8 by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      This. A million times this.

      There two basic things wrong with the VLC plan.

      First, as a tech community we should not, in any way, be going along with turning Windows into a closed platform/walled garden/ whatever you want to call it. This 'you must receive MS approval' bullshit cannot and should not be supported. Absolutely no one who makes any popular software should be seeking approval from microsoft, ever. If you want to be an abused spouse Apple has room.

      Secondly. Even if Windows 8 was an open platform, it's still a terrible user experience. At its heart is the inconsistent confused nature of the two different GUI's. I'm sympathetic, it's hard to figure out how to resolve this issue as a developer. But that's the problem. Windows 9 compatibility could require significant code changes if they decide to axe one of the two GUI's, or add a third or god knows what. Spending money on a project like VLC to make it all 'metro' is simply not sensible and not something we should in any way be going along with. Most especially not given that it is quite likely they will need to beg for money again in a couple of years to support windows 9, and toss their entire windows 8 codebase.

    13. Re:Win 8 by hillbluffer · · Score: 1

      No kidding; Win8 is full of fail, IMHO

    14. Re:Win 8 by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Notable, perhaps, that the Kickstarter campaign is almost halfway through its allotted time, and has raised less than half the required funds. For a project as huge and well supported as VLC, £40,000 should be easy. Maybe a Slashdot story will give them a boost (probably the reason it was submitted in the first place), but that's hardly certain considering the Slashdot crowd's opinion of "Metro" apps.

      Looking at its progress, it seems like it achieved almost all of its current funding on day one, stagnated for almost 2 weeks (even net losing pledges on one day), before receiving a spike today (presumably because of this article).
      http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/1061646928/vlc-for-the-new-windows-8-user-experience-metro/

    15. Re:Win 8 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Didn't the iOS version get taken down due to conflicts with the licensing of VLC and the iOS App Store? Wouldn't the exact same thing happen here?

    16. Re:Win 8 by rezalas · · Score: 1

      Your first statement immediately made all other statements pointless. You immediately showed that you are unable to have an intelligent conversation and thus your view following the slurs are meaningless.

    17. Re:Win 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's "desktop penetration" is because it comes pre-installed on just about every new desktop and laptop that's been sold (in the comsumer retail market, anyway) since Win8 was released, and every one of those preinstalls gets counted as a "sale" and another +1 for their mythical "desktop penetration" numbers without taking into account how many of those Win8 preinstalls STAY installed once people get those computers home vs. how many roll them back to Win7.

      If Linux could arrange to be preinstalled on every PC sold in the last six months, and could subsequently handwave their "desktop penetration" numbers without acknowledging how many of those PCs were switched over to some flavor of Windows after the sale -- or, if Microsoft and their cheerleading squad were required to track Win8-to-Win7 downgrades and report the TRUE "desktop penetration" numbers of how many of those Win8-preinstalled PCs were STILL running Win8 three months after the sale -- then you might have a valid argument.

    18. Re:Win 8 by Lawrence61 · · Score: 1

      Win8 is the worst steaming pile of shit you ever seen!

    19. Re:Win 8 by Lawrence61 · · Score: 1

      If they have half a brain, they'd buy an older version of the o/s or get an apple machine, actually drop windows altogether is the best idea.

    20. Re:Win 8 by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      What makes you think people give a shit? Windows 8 adoption is abysmal, to say the least.

      Hey guys I have a flagship plz buy kthx? Doesn't work that way.

    21. Re:Win 8 by Macrat · · Score: 1

      More like one of the VLC developers who works for Nokia started complaining and got it pulled.

    22. Re:Win 8 by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm being petulant, but at least I'm not contributing to Windows 8.

      There are a lot of opinions on slashdot, but one of the most common is "A inhibits innovation." Where A is Microsoft, patents, copyrights, or a variety of other things.
      I never thought I see someone on slashdot encouraging inhibiting innovation.

    23. Re:Win 8 by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Is it *encouraging* MS Windows 8, or is it helping out those who have no choice?

  2. Source... by Niedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What is the situation with the source/GPL?
    "Any code touching the user interface created within this endeavor will be licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (GPLv2+), possibly with an exception for the Windows Store if needed."
    I remember vaguely that there once was a VLC for iOS around before some internal debate about whether or not this sort of port was acceptable with the GPL caused apple to remove it. Exception for Windows Store? How should that work out then?

    1. Re:Source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I imagine the same issue will apply. The issue was that the Terms of Service imposed by the Apple store, applied restrictions to distribution that were contrary to the terms of the GPL

    2. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten about that drama.... yeah, I imagine some of the same issues could come into play with the Win8 version unless they got with LGPL instead.. though it sounds like they are going with a 'behaves like LGPL in places where GPL compatibility issues stop us from posting to the store.'... which.. can they even do?

    3. Re:Source... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes and no. Rémi Denis-Courmont one of the lead VLC developers objected when someone else ported VLC to iOS and put it on the App store. Denis-Courmont did not want DRM on VLC code. So Apple removed it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Source... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      VLC was removed from the Apple store because Apple's TOS are incompatible with the GPL. Whether it's appropriate on the Windows store depends on Microsoft.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Source... by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I don't get that.... in what way did the person who ported VLC to iOS not comply with the GPL? Was the source code for the iOS app unavailable?

    6. Re:Source... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely nothing that prevents a GPLv2 application from showing up on the Apple iOS store other than 'I don't want my app there!!@#!@%#!@#%'

      GPLv3 code wouldnt' be able to be posted at all as it would required Apple/MS to give away their encryption/signing keys, which isn't going to happen.

      VLC came off the app store because one of the developers raised a stink and Apple didn't want to deal with him being a douche.

      You can publish VLC on the App store yourself as long as you also distribute the source as it is GPLv2 which doesnt' do any silly things that prevent it from being put there.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 1

      While the person was legally entitled to do what they did.... yeah, they were a douche. As far a I can tell they did it specifically because they wanted users off iOS and onto Android.. so utilizing a legal technicality to try to force people onto a platform they liked better.

    8. Re:Source... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      'behaves like LGPL in places where GPL compatibility issues stop us from posting to the store.'... which.. can they even do?

      They can do that for new code, or for code they hold the copyright to. They'd have to make up a new license. Whether LGPL is sufficient might be questionable.

      They would not be able to distribute GPL code linked or embedded in their software for which they do not own copyright.

    9. Re:Source... by hweimer · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can publish VLC on the App store yourself as long as you also distribute the source as it is GPLv2 which doesnt' do any silly things that prevent it from being put there.

      Wrong.

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    10. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apples DRM restricts a single purchase of an application to 5 devices, so while the source was available, Rémi Denis-Courmont felt that the distribution restrictions were not compatible with GPL, and Apple did not feel like fighting him on it.

      I am a little skeptical of the claim since, at it's heart, the GPL is about releasing source back to the community, not about how the final binary is distributed. There was also an argument (not sure if it was in the copyright complaint) that iOS did not allow users to change the version they had installed, so they couldn't grab the source, recompile, and update their version.. but that is an old battle line with GPL and embedded devices.... which is probably beyond the scope of this discussion (and would probably result in a flame war between consumers and developers)

    11. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 1

      The more that I think about it, the less likely I find that they can actually do this. Even with new code, they are linking to existing GPL code. Looking at their updates it appears they are trying to move over to LGPL but are not there yet, so the whole package is still GPL... thus I do not believe they can actually make a 'Windows Store' exception any more then they could have made an 'Apple Store' exception.. and looking at how the FSF treated the GNU Go port, even if the VLC team wants to do so, other parties might file a complaint anyway.

    12. Re:Source... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple removed it because legally the developer has the right whatever his intentions. This is one problem with code from multiple contributors like open source in a gardened wall ecosystem.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 2

      Hrm. Reread some of the drama... multiple developers (the ones who were pissed at being in the iOS store) have explicitly said they would not allow the project to re-lisence under LGPL anyway. So unless their code is being ripped out and replaced....

    14. Re:Source... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      There was also an argument (not sure if it was in the copyright complaint) that iOS did not allow users to change the version they had installed, so they couldn't grab the source, recompile, and update their version.

      Uh, no... if the source is available, and you have an app developer's license for iOS, then you can compile any iOS source code you want and install it in your own devices. Redistributing the binary requires going through the iOS store, but if it's GPL, you can redistribute your modified the source code however you want.

      Or is the objection that it requires a (paid) developer's license to compile for the platform? How is that any different than, say, requiring a particular commercial compiler?

      I get why Apple didn't feel like fighting him on it... it's not their fight, nor should it be. But the VLC developer who decided to go after Apple for that was an idiot... completely defeating the entire point of having his software be GPL in the first place, and in the process, probably scaring quite a few people away from using GPL software entirely legitimately.

    15. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 1

      (to add)

      Having gone back over the argument of the person who filed the claim, I think that within the US at least it was probably baseless. The AppStore restrictions apply to the distribution mechanism and the wrapper the binary comes in. The person claimed they were fighting for the 'rights of the user' to modify the binary and run it however they like.

      However, since jailbreaking is legally protected in the US, the user always has the freedom to grab the original source and install the application outside the restrictions of the app store, thus VLC appearing in the app store under its restrictions does not bar the user from exersizing their rights under the GPL

      Thus I return to my earlier take on it.. that the person didn't like Apple and wanted people to use other products, so he used a legal threat to bump VLC off the Appstore..a childish 'I am gonna take my toys and go home, and make sure no one else can use them unless they use them where I want them to be used' tantrum.

      Add in the extra sleeze of using the VLC feed to make his announcement (making it look like the VLC team in general was announcing the claim) and then ranting about censorship and restricting his freedom when they removed it from the official feed.

      One of the ironies here is he used one of the very behaviors that 'freedom centric' people often complain about to his own advantage... most places when provided with a copyright infringement complaint simply take it a face value and remove the offending material. So he probably banked on the assumption that Apple, when receiving the complaint, would simply act on it in good faith and remove VLC.

    16. Re:Source... by jythie · · Score: 1

      completely defeating the entire point of having his software be GPL in the first place, and in the process, probably scaring quite a few people away from using GPL software entirely legitimately.

      I actually really worry about GPL getting divisive. I know a lot of embedded developers soured after GPLv3 which targeted embedded systems while leaving web ones alone, so many felt it represented the needs of people who consumed embedded but worked in the web/server world,... which in OSS the server centric developers vastly outnumber the embedded ones.. so you end up with a rather skewed voice.

      Thus there was some bad blood there that moved some people away from GPL.. I worry that stunts like this might push people further away, which could potentially diminish the role of OSS in these new environments... which of course pits the purist against the pragmatist... people who want the pure abstract freedom at all levels and people who want rich tools/applications widly distributed and building off each other with source available to everyone.

    17. Re:Source... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You do not need to jailbreak the device in order to compile apps for it, unless you do not have an iOS developer's license.

      The provision that a person should not have to have such a license seems to me to be no more arbitrary than requiring a particular commercial compiler, and should not affect the availability of the source code or the ability for people to modify and recompile it.

      It really seems to me like the VLC developer was objecting that it was being ported to a platform that costs money to develop for.

    18. Re:Source... by caseih · · Score: 1

      It's very simple. Since the VLC developers own the copyright on their code (for this Windows 8 version), and presumably would require all contributors to turn over copyright of patches to them, then they can license it however they want. They are promising to dual-license it, meaning the GPLv2+ for anyone that wants it, and some "proprietary" license for the version downloaded from the app store. I'm sure MS will find some excuse to say this violates the spirit of their app store licensing rules, but from a legal standpoint, it is a completely justified way of doing it, and MS can't really deny it on the grounds of the GPL, because the app store binary will not be GPL. Of course if you want to you can download the exact source used to create the binary from videolan.org under the terms of the GPLv2. You can then make a binary yourself, but you will be unable to offer it on the app store because it's now GPL. The original app store binary is not GPL and you can't copy it and re-submit it to the app store as your own work like so many do on the android store with open source utilities like dosbox.

      For all intents and purposes, any code that is under the GPL can be offered by the copyright holders to anyone on any terms. So in a sense all GPL code is potentially dual-license-able, provided all the copyright holders agree.

      Apple denying VLC from their app store is probably as much to do with "duplicating existing functionality" as much as any licensing issue.

    19. Re:Source... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the store is relevant, though. VLC is free and Windows 8 is not a walled-garden, so there is absolutely no need for it to be on the "Microsoft Store". The iOS is different, in that the only way to install something (short of rooting your device) is via the store.

    20. Re:Source... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      True... you can't redistribute your binary... but doesn't the GPL only require that people who receive the software have the right to redistribute the *SOURCE*?

    21. Re:Source... by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      The article mentions windows rt. So it's not closed, but will go through windows app store.

    22. Re:Source... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      So what's the difference with this situation? Why would he be opposed to VLC on iOS, but be fine with VLC on the Windows 8 store?

    23. Re:Source... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unlike iOS app store developer agreement, the one for Windows Store has an explicit exemption for OSI-approved FOSS licenses, including GPL:

      Your license terms must also not conflict with the Standard Application License Terms, in any way, except if you include FOSS, your license terms may conflict with the limitations set forth in Section 3 of those Terms, but only to the extent required by the FOSS that you use. "FOSS" means any software licensed under an Open Source Initiative Approved License.

      And section 3 is as follows:

      3. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The application is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the application. Application developer reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the application only as expressly permitted in this agreement. You may not work around any technical limitations in the application; reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the application, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation; make more copies of the application than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation; publish or otherwise make the application available for others to copy; or rent, lease or lend the application.

      So I don't think there's any issues with it being in the store. I mean, it would still be in a walled garden, but at that point, with the clause above rescinded, it would be purely a technical limitation that users can legally work around if they can, not a legal one.

    24. Re:Source... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      VLC is free and Windows 8 is not a walled-garden, so there is absolutely no need for it to be on the "Microsoft Store".

      Win8 is not a walled garden, but WinRT (the ARM version) is. You have to have your app published in Windows Store for it to be available there.

    25. Re:Source... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      So what's the difference with this situation? Why would he be opposed to VLC on iOS, but be fine with VLC on the Windows 8 store?

      He probably wouldn't be fine. Unless the Windows 8 store terms are different (they might be different in some subtle way that makes all the difference), or unless Microsoft were willing to fight this in court (unlikely), or unless Microsoft makes an offer he cannot refuse. Or possibly if he gave up caring.

      Personally, I think he was wrong. On the App Store, there can be two licenses in play: There is Apple's license, which allows you to do certain things, like making several copies for private use. The developer has to agree that you have the rights that this license gives you, otherwise you cannot go on the app store. Then there is whatever license the developer gave you. My interpretation is that you have the right to do anything that _either_ license allows you to do.

      With that interpretation, any objections because Apple's license is restrictive would be void, because you could do whatever Apple doesn't allow due to the GPL license that you got as well. It would be a valid objection if Apple allowed to do things that GPL doesn't allow, like distributing unlimited copies without source code (if one of the copyright holders objects).

    26. Re:Source... by Parafilmus · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the store is relevant, though. VLC is free and Windows 8 is not a walled-garden, so there is absolutely no need for it to be on the "Microsoft Store".

      Win8 is compatible with old-fashioned windows apps, but the new "Metro" environment -is- a walled garden.

      This project seeks to port VLC to the "Metro" environment. To run on the start screen, and have the Windows 8 "look and feel."

      For that, they will need Microsoft's blessing.

    27. Re:Source... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      What is the situation with the source/GPL?

      "Any code touching the user interface created within this endeavor will be licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (GPLv2+), possibly with an exception for the Windows Store if needed."

      I remember vaguely that there once was a VLC for iOS around before some internal debate about whether or not this sort of port was acceptable with the GPL caused apple to remove it. Exception for Windows Store? How should that work out then?

      It wasn't the GPL that caused Apple to remove VLC from iOS, it was one of VLC's developers objecting to his code being used on iOS and asking Apple to take it down, so they did.

      The app store is compatible with GPLv2, but not v3.

    28. Re:Source... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      VLC was removed from the Apple store because Apple's TOS are incompatible with the GPL. Whether it's appropriate on the Windows store depends on Microsoft.

      This is not true. VLC was removed from the App Store because a VLC developer asked Apple to remove it.

      Apple had already modified their TOS to be compatible with the GPL (up to v2) before that.

    29. Re:Source... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I imagine the same issue will apply. The issue was that the Terms of Service imposed by the Apple store, applied restrictions to distribution that were contrary to the terms of the GPL

      Then how is it that the Apple App Store(s), just like the Apple OSes they run on, are chock-full of GPL-based Code?

      That's actually a serious question.

    30. Re:Source... by GrubInCan · · Score: 1

      I still have it on my iPad - but I thought it was the developers themselves that pulled it from the store, not Apple.

    31. Re:Source... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If they link to existing GPL code then any binaries they build have to be GPL licensed - agreed. If the entire project is new code or code they hold copyright to (which might be all the existing code for all I know) then they don't. Do they require copyright assignments?

      If they just distribute source (which obviously is useless for the Windows Store) then they can mix all the GPL and non-GPL they want to as long as each goes in its own files. Of course, nobody can distribute any binaries derived from this source. I guess I'm spoiled by Gentoo - where there is no need to distribute anything but upstream unmodified tarballs since all the magic happens after all the distribution is done. :)

  3. Have Microsoft Pay by tvlinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why would any sane person donate to have VLC ported to Windows8? If MS wants windows8 to succeed have them pay for the development.

    1. Re:Have Microsoft Pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here is an idea... Someone wants to use win8?

      Unlikely. But I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people are provided a win8 limited laptop through work and would like to be able to use it to watch movies. Once you get the movie started and you can step away from the computer it can't be that bad.

    2. Re:Have Microsoft Pay by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 2

      If Microsoft paid them, wouldn't other major software brands want funding to port to Windows 8 too? And after that, what if other OSes wanted popular software ported to their platform? Sets a terrible precedent IMO.

      However, they could either A) make a substantial anonymous donation to the Kickstarter fund or B) outright buy VLC and internalize the development team.

    3. Re:Have Microsoft Pay by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Like it or hate it, win8 is what we are going to use in the future

      I don't think that's true, at all. There were a ton of people who never touched Vista, whatsoever. They had XP and then they had Windows 7. These are likely many of the same users who will stick with Windows 7 until Windows 9. Unless we're at the end of meaningful desktop interfaces (which sometimes seems the case -- across all three primary platforms), in which case we'll all eventually be forced by obsolescence into whatever "the new thing" is and all start using a single window/app at a time on our 30" touch-screens two feet in front of our faces, with apps we've purchased through a built-in store on our designed platform.

      Or we'll all just shrug off technology entirely and go live as hermits in the mountains. That's my plan.

    4. Re:Have Microsoft Pay by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but we have a whole generation of kids coming up that likely wont use a windows PC until school, and then they wil be the oldest, most bloated and locked down machines. Business is the only stronghold MS has left, and the walls are closing in fast. Choice is legion right now, take advantage.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Have Microsoft Pay by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      We have a winrar. I have a Surface and I'm eagerly awaiting this since the Video app on the Surface kinda sucks.

    6. Re:Have Microsoft Pay by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Because... some of us use Windows 8 and use VLC. So presumably if I donate to VLC I get to use it with Windows RT?

  4. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like I would give money to improve that POS OS.

  5. I'd rather see.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 2

    a VLC streamer app that lets me stream videos to my iOS devices from my home PCs. I'm sure it's possible through some technical hacks, but the VLC server that I have right now by default works or is said to work that I can only stream on my local network.

    1. Re:I'd rather see.. by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2

      how about VLC Streamer ?

      It's an app I wrote...

      http://hobbyistsoftware.com/vlcstreamer

    2. Re:I'd rather see.. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      It's not VLC - but there's a Plex client for iOS. No hacking required.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  6. Porting VLC to Windows 8... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why?

    Oh I see. The kickstarter money is compensation for the people that try to use VLC on Windows 8.

  7. Why? by assertation · · Score: 1

    I am a big fan of VLC. I've been using Linux for about 10 years and when other things fail to play videos, VLC succeeds.

    When I am on a Windows box, there is plenty of software to play anything.

    What benefit is there, for end users, for porting VLC to Windows?

    1. Re:Why? by hideouspenguinboy · · Score: 2

      I'm using VLC on Windows 7 right now - because I'm at work. I use it at home on linux and mac boxes.

      I prefer it to any other media player I've seen on windows. I'm not a fan of windows 8 by any means, but it's obvious why someone would want it there.

    2. Re:Why? by leuk_he · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are 100 media players on windows. 97 of them depend on the decoding drivers of mediaplayer to decode videos. So if some video is dong badly ( Bad image quality/ high cpu usage/ unsupported file type), then your options to play that file become limited. VLC has all the demuxers and video decoders build -in , so that is one of your options left then.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I still prefer media player classic HC over VLC.
      Mostly because skipping through video is actually accurate, and doesn't jump to some random place near where I clicked.
      I also prefer the interface over that of VLC.
      Although, I use VLC to play back broken and incomplete videos.

    4. Re:Why? by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Why do FOSS developers waste their time porting their hard work to Windows, of all platforms?

      FOSS in more places is good, regardless. Proving out that there are good FOSS applications, and getting people using them, reduces the barriers to transitioning to a FOSS platform in time.

      Why don't we just work on making VLC better for the Linux users?

      If it's written properly, improving VLC should apply to all platforms.

      Did you react in a similar manner towards Steam coming to Linux?

    5. Re:Why? by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Okay, wait . . . what? VLC is already ported to Windows. People have been using it on Windows for years (and there really isn't anything comparable on Windows, Linux, or OSX in my experience). I'm pretty certain it works on Windows 8, too. They're just looking to "Metro-ify" it so it buys-into the whole Windows 8 manner of using apps and the whole Windows 8/Metro interface and design. As well as making it available through the Microsoft App Store thing.

      So, even less reason for me to feel compelled to donate to this effort, since it's not like people are being prevented from using VLC on Windows 8 as it is, now (as far as I understand).

    6. Re:Why? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Good will. One of the weird things I've noticed about the aforementioned FOSS developers is a tendency to want to make computing better in general. Plus there's a certain hipster appeal of using FOSS software on Windows ironically.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    7. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Because many developers of FOSS software don't share your perspective of it being some kind of "united front" where it's all for one and one for all, and everyone who's not with us is against us - and just want to make good software, release it under permissive license, and make it available to the widest possible audience?

    8. Re:Why? by Galilee · · Score: 1

      If you use Windows and all of your important applications are open source and cross platform then you have an easier time replacing the operating system. I doubt that is the goal of the VLC developers, but it is a nice side effect.

  8. Not for me by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a long time user of VLC. I use it on windows 8 currently. I don't want to see a metro version because metro apps are full screen only, and that's not for me. The regular VLC works just fine in win8 so basically they're raising money to more or less create a VLC skin...

    On the other hand it could end up being the first metro app that's worth a flip. Every one I've tried so far has serious technical problems (for example Netflix and Skype).

    As an aside, it's worth noting that even MS doesn't take metro seriously when it comes to actually selling applications. Office 2013 apps are desktop mode. Visio 2013 is desktop mode. Visual Studio 2012 is desktop mode. See a pattern here?

    1. Re:Not for me by Trintech · · Score: 1

      The regular VLC works just fine in win8 so basically they're raising money to more or less create a VLC skin...

      If you read the kickstarter page, you will see it is much more than a skin for windows 8. They are planning a native ARM port for tablets as well and, as they note on the page, there is currently no toolchain available that supports all the feature they need for that port so it will be quite a bit of work. Plus, they also expect to run into problems with Windows RT's new sandboxing system.

    2. Re:Not for me by gparent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a long time user of VLC. I use it on windows 8 currently. I don't want to see a metro version because metro apps are full screen only, and that's not for me. The regular VLC works just fine in win8 so basically they're raising money to more or less create a VLC skin...

      There's obviously a market for Windows 8 apps, and over 1200 people currently want that app to be produced. I do agree with you that Win8 apps shouldn't -replace- regular apps, but they have their (limited) use. For instance, I hardly ever use my video player non-fullscreen, so I can see the idea here.

      This is a great example of Open Source working as intended. Some people want a feature, they realize people may not work for free for it, and funds are raised so those interested can be the ones giving the money to get it produced. Then, once it's done, the entire world benefits from the software and its source code.

      I don't even use VLC, but even if I hate Windows 8 as much as the next guy (yes, I tested it..), I can't see anything wrong with this.

    3. Re:Not for me by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would really like to have a metro version that I can snap to the side while working on other things. So yeah, I'll kick in a few bucks.
      Oh, and I'd also like to have the RT version to run on my Surface.

    4. Re:Not for me by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That software written before or built on software predating Metro might not be Metro? I know, I'm still waiting for Excel 2.0 to be a 32-bit Windows NT application.

      Office 2013 was released 21 days before Win8. I believe they are intended to be run together.

      Visual studio 2012 is what they want you to use to build metro apps with.

    5. Re:Not for me by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Office 2013 apps are desktop mode. Visio 2013 is desktop mode. Visual Studio 2012 is desktop mode. See a pattern here?

      That Microsoft decided not to limit the market on their bread and butter apps to an OS that enterprises won't upgrade to for years even if it was a resounding success?

      Exactly my point. So, if you were developing an application.. VLC for example.. you would be okay with taking a risk that the makers of win8 metro are not?

    6. Re:Not for me by gparent · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you replied to me, I'm not trying to convince you that Win8 apps are the future. Surely the people who gave more than fifteen thousand pounds of money already know how the OS they use work, if it's even as bad as you say it is.

    7. Re:Not for me by thoth · · Score: 2

      That software written before or built on software predating Metro might not be Metro? I know, I'm still waiting for Excel 2.0 to be a 32-bit Windows NT application.

      I would say if they want serious buy-in from developers, then they need to actually show some faith in their own products. Waiting for some ancient version of a product to be ported is stupid, like your example, but expecting a 32 bit version to come out eventually isn't.

      Same thing with Metro - if this is the awesome interface of the future they are invested in, then let's see something in addition to little applets and Internet Explorer.

    8. Re:Not for me by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Office 2013 was released 21 days before Win8

      That's not true. Windows 8 was released on October 26. Office 2013 technically hasn't been released yet.

      You can get Office 2013 if you are an MSDN or TechNet subscriber, a volume licensing customer, or if you're willing to use a time-limited trial version. But Office 2013 is not available in the retail channel; in fact, Microsoft has not even said exactly when it plans to make it available.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    9. Re:Not for me by Carrot007 · · Score: 2

      > For instance, I hardly ever use my video player non-fullscreen, so I can see the idea here.

      This has got me thinking.

      Can someone please clarify something for me?

      Can you run a "metro" all (for instance VLC) on one screen and run the desktop and associated apps on another. I usually have vlc full screen, but on a second monitor.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    10. Re:Not for me by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I was going by the release date listed on wikipedia. I've got MSDN and Technet and got my copy from MSDN.

    11. Re:Not for me by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      How is it that Ms can tell dev's that they are not allowed to use system 32 libraries on metro and rt but they do so themselves? Didn't. They get in trouble for using secret api's to make office better than the competitors products (word perfect) back in the anti trust suits? If it was an illegal anticompetative abuse of monopoly then why is it okay now?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    12. Re:Not for me by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I use it on windows 8 currently. I don't want to see a metro version because metro apps are full screen only, and that's not for me. The regular VLC works just fine in win8 so basically they're raising money to more or less create a VLC skin...

      You forget about ARM tablets running Windows RT. The only thing that'll run there is the Metro version, since you can't install third-party desktop apps on them.

    13. Re:Not for me by plus_M · · Score: 1

      Yes. In fact, "metro" can only run on one screen at a time.

  9. Useful Software by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 3, Informative

    VLC is one of those must-haves on any newly reformatted system. They've done an excellent job of making a player that Just Works, for every single format I could encounter in the field. I use it as a simple video player, but in the many years that I've been using it, I've only encountered one format ever that even VLC threw up its hands and refused to play. They're constantly updating performance, threading capability, offering all kinds of new features and options well beyond what I use VLC for. Since Windows stopped bundling a lot of DVD software natively, they've been the go-to software of choice for close to a decade, and they deserve to have their efforts and their project rewarded with solid backing, since they've managed to navigate through the morass of codecs and incompatible formats, while remaining lightweight, intuitive, and universally functional. Good luck guys =)!

    1. Re:Useful Software by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Since Windows stopped bundling a lot of DVD software natively, they've been the go-to software of choice for close to a decade

      I'm having trouble following you here. Windows first put DVD codecs into Windows Vista (released Jan 2007). Windows stopped putting codecs in Windows 8 (released Oct 2012). Given that it isn't 2022, I find it hard to follow that the reason VLC has been the go-to choice for close to a decade is because Windows stopped bundling DVD software for about two months.

    2. Re:Useful Software by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      It's two seperate thoughts, VLC has been the go-to software of choice for close to a decade (source: anecdotal including my own opinion, ymmv). That Windows stopped putting codecs in Windows 8 (circa Oct 2012) leads to AnotherAnonymousUser's point that those who rely on VLC for convenience can continue to rely on VLC for convenience.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  10. No. by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Fix VLC first. There are still a lot of outstanding issues and I encounter DVD's every day that PowerDVD will play but VLC will just crash on. Usually, literally, in the first moments. We're not talking obscure movies, either, but current new DVD releases.

    I remember an almighty-long wait for VLC to put back in functionality to ignore keyboard hotkeys after committing code that made pressing the volume button on your computer adjust both system volume and VLC volume and it was possible to get to a state where it was impossible to unmute both. The unofficial patch that circulated took forever to make its way into the client stables.

    I also get a lot of random crashes and hangs when viewing content that, after killing the process, will work fine. I also have found it almost impossible to stream things properly without having to know a myriad technical details about what I'm streaming from / to, a large part of which VLC could automate for me. I spent an hour yesterday figuring out the command-line (yep, I gave up on the GUI quite quickly after several tests resulted in nothing) to stream my desktop (via VLC's built-in "screen" source) and local Stereo Mix audio to a network-accessible stream to a VLC player on a remote machine. I gave up in the end and did things another way.

    Don't get me started on things like DVD navigation (easy to "go in circles" on a lot of DVD menus), obscure formats that still error, playlist management, etc. Do I hate VLC? No, it's the only media player I install and one of the first things I do on any fresh machine, and I often give people Portable VLC for when they just want to play an obscure video file once (e.g. CCTV recordings, etc.). Which makes it even MORE annoying that these things are still present.

    2) VLC works on Windows 8. What you mean is "Metro", and nobody cares about that.

    3) The delivery promises are rubbish. I wouldn't touch it even if it was something I wanted - they don't even know if the license is compatible, the toolchain can exist, the app would ever be accepted, the API's exposed are enough, or whether the performance wouldn't suffer atrociously - but the kickstarter doesn't mean you'll get your money back if they can't.

    You could pay a fortune, still not see any app, and not see any money back. (Some would say that's par-for-the-course on Kickstarter, but if you use your brain and support only those people who make particular promises and are likely to deliver on them, it's no worse than doing the same anywhere else).

    Sorry, I'd rather donate GBP20 to VLC itself and get some of my bugbears fixed, thanks. Still can't quite believe that I can pretty reliably crash the client just by turning on certain visualisations when I get *ZERO* problems in any other program, media-player, game or anything else.

    1. Re:No. by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2) VLC works on Windows 8. What you mean is "Metro", and nobody cares about that.

      Ostensibly, almost 1200 people care about it so far.

    2. Re:No. by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I don't see many of the issues you are complaining about. I am not saying they don't exist, I've just never seen them. I have seen a couple of obscure codecs that VLC doesn't work, but they play just fine in Media Player with KLite installed. I've never seen the point of network streaming with VLC - I either share the folder or use Windows Media Center to share the folders, and pull up the files on my laptop or XBox. Seems to be much less trouble. Menu support for DVDs does suck, but I normally have VLC set to skip menus anyways.

      Things I would like to see:
      1) What is up with VLC wanting to rebuild the font cache? I haven't installed new fonts. Stop asking to rebuild the font cache every 10 or 20th start.
      2) If the codec isn't bundled in with VLC, it should be able to read the codec off of Windows. This will stop me from having to resort to Media Player for the couple of obscure videos that VLC doesn't support (or having to convert the video)
      3) I want to be able to setup some defaults on videos. If the audio stream has 5.1 channels, I want it to default to that, not to 2.0 channels. I understand that most people do not have 5.1 hooked up to their PCs, but I would like the option to have that set as a default.
      4) Be able to setup defaults for certain types of videos based on resolution, framerate, aspect ratio, etc. For example, there are several software packages out there (mainly converters) that have the option to detect black bars (ie 4x3 letterboxed stuff). I would love an option to detect that in a video and auto-crop to 16x9. If the framerate is say 30 or 60fps, I would like to have an option to deinterlace by default.
      5) Better support for 3D material. Mainly my issue is that I have 3D software that renders all files as full-SBS. I have looked and looked for options in the software to render HalfSBS, but I just can't find the option. The problem in VLC is that it scales the video on my 3DTV, to 1920x1080, meaning that my videos get pillarboxed and stretched when I switch the TV to SBS mode. i don't have this issue with HalfSBS material that I rip from Youtube and such. Basically, I want the option where, if the video is 3840x1080, it would scale it to 1920x1080. Right now, the only option I seem to have is to use Total Media Center and have it send a native 3D image to the TV instead of SBS. This works, but ITMC seems to be really bad about dropping frames, even on an 8 core system and high end video card.
      6) Support for DVD and Blu-Ray disc structures. Like, I think they took this feature out of PowerDVD, but you used to be able to tell it to play disc structures on the harddrive. I author a lot of the materail I shoot to Blu-Ray, and would like to make sure it works before I write it to disc. Right now, I have to spend about an hour writing it to a BD-RW to see that it works right.

      if any of these features are already in VLC, someone please tell me how to use them!

    3. Re:No. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Issue 3 annoyed me for too long until I finally looked for a solution

    4. Re:No. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Why don't you start a kickstarter to fix those issues then?

    5. Re:No. by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Would that be the same 1200 people who have bought and are enjoying using Windows 8 so far?

    6. Re:No. by stms · · Score: 1

      Really? Are we talking about the same VLC here? I've used VLC for 7 years almost everyday across multiple operating systems and versions (mostly Mac and Windows some Linux). I've probably seen it crash somewhere in the single digits usually because I was trying to make it do something it was meant to do.

    7. Re:No. by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I think I have 2.0.3, mainly because I haven't been on my home PC much lately - I moved about a month ago and still working on getting stuff going. My home PC hasn't been a priority. Pretty sure i have upgraded to 2.0.4 on the laptop.

      Someone else mentioned how to setup the prefrences to default to 5.1. Going to try that tonight.

      Yeah, I know you can manually crop videos. The issue is when you have like, oh, say a couple of dozen clips that you put in a playlist, and are like outputting to the television. You then have to turn cropping on and off - ie - some videos are already 16x9 (so cropping doesn't apply), some are 4x3, and some are 4x3 letterbox. I usually just end up reencoding the videos, but any time you reencode a video, you loose quality. of course, if its 4x3 letterbox, the video is probably older and usually has some other issues, so I normally end up running a few filters to clean up the video as well. Anyways, I'm chasing rabbits. It just that it would be nice if there was an option to detect black bars, like many encoding packages has, and crop the video.

      Never thought to right click on a folder and tell it to play in VLC, that may work. Will try that tonight. Makes sense, I use it a lot on individual video files, just never thought to try it on a folder. The Open Folder thing has had issues for me in the past. I don't think I have tried it since 2.0.1, and was trying that on a Blu-Ray structure. Will try that this weekend and see if I can get it working.

    8. Re:No. by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I do have a bluetooth keyboard, so that may be an option. I'll try that!

  11. Re:No thanks.. by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

    You shouldn't be using the scroll bars in touch, you should be two finger dragging.

    You change apps (alt-tab) by two finger (or three?) swiping from the left edge of the screen towards the center.

    I personally don't care for Windows 8, but you really need to learn its gestures if you want it to suck a whole lot less.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  12. Re:response thus far by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    Perhaps then you should donate some money towards forwarding your goals for VLC rather than hoping that others goals don't get met.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  13. Re:Worst Kickstarter Ever? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they like tablet apps that aren't horrible desktop ports?

    Metro is fine ON A TABLET. Sucks on the desktop.

    Stop using Metro apps on the desktop and you won't give a shit.

    This is a case of where you're bitching about having options, which is just retarded.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  14. VLC sucks far less than Windows Media Player... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

    It plays anything I have thrown at it, takes up less resources and disc space, and isn't constantly loading updates and security patches.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  15. Windows 8 is OK by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

    Nice and fast. But those full-screen, pastel-colored apps? No thanks. Don't bother, VLC. "How do I avoid these full-screen programs" is the first question I get when I'm helping someone with a new Windows 8 laptop.

    1. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been running Win8 for months now. I use classic shell and the most I see out of the tile interface is to click desktop.

      To me it looks like Win 7 with some improvements under the hood. I haven't had any trouble with it and I don't really get why people hate the built-in apps that they never have to see or use. After a while the complaints just start to look like "I don't like things that are different."

    2. Re:Windows 8 is OK by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What do you offer up when they ask that?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

      The Windows 8 "native" apps are for things like email, media center, chat. I just show the new users how to access the same programs they had worked with previously on the Windows 7 desktop, or tell them to use their webmail client for email and chat. I would install VLC on the desktop for anyone who wanted to run media anyway. The full screen apps just seem too restrictive, as that's not really how the work flow is usually set up on a laptop. Even my Chromebook, which is "just a browser" (actually a specialized version of Gentoo), allows the windows to be reduced in size and moved around so you can view multiple tasks at once.

    4. Re:Windows 8 is OK by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How do I avoid these full-screen programs" is the first question I get when I'm helping someone with a new Windows 8 laptop.

      And how do I get this video to play full screen without all the controls and bars and menus is the first question I get when I'm helping someone playback movies with VLC.

      Personally I'd love a VLC app for windows 8, which I'm using on my HTPC right now, where the large pastel tiles etc are a good user interface.

      I find it odd that the pro-linux crowd here is all about user choice... a thousand distros with mix and match desktops so everyone can have exactly what they want... but god forbid VLC release a windows 8 app that they don't even have to use.

    5. Re:Windows 8 is OK by jimbo · · Score: 1

      I would guess the worry is that future apps start being Metro exclusively instead of offering choice.

    6. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You modify windows 8 to behave and look more like windows 7 and then you wonder why people complain about windows 8?

    7. Re:Windows 8 is OK by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That would be insane. VLC is ported to pretty much every platform there is -- anyone who would think VLC is going metro-only needs to stop posting while high.

    8. Re:Windows 8 is OK by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      As a power user myself, I cannot say I ever used my start menu. I have a launcher installed and I'd launch programs without the use of some mouse-driven point and click mess called a "start menu".

      Nothing changes in 8. The new start menu sucks but if you are so incompetent you cannot find solutions to your own tech problems then why are you here on slashdot?

    9. Re:Windows 8 is OK by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, "improvements" like removing the Start Menu and making it full screen."

      It's what we had in the DOS days and we sure didn't like it.

    10. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      I think he meant MS forcing apps or the entire OS to be metro-style only, not VLC. Which is equally insane, imo. At least with the current implementation.

    11. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you make a good point.

    12. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I don't really get why people hate the built-in apps that they never have to see or use."

      Because it is fucking bloat and additional bullshit that is taking up space on my hard drive, and the majority of it you can't fucking remove.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Windows 8 is OK by Fishchip · · Score: 1

      And that's what all the 'I fucking hate Windows 8' talk seems to be centered around. Regardless of the fact that if you choose, with about zero extra work, you can use it as Win7, the fact it has Metro bolted on somehow makes it the worst OS ever.

      I'm running it now on an HP dv5000 that Xubuntu ran alright on, and you know what? Somehow, with all that 'extra bloat', it feels snappier. I'm not sure how this is possible with this huge overworked bloated piece of shit Win8 is supposed to be. I must be doing something wrong.

    14. Re:Windows 8 is OK by sd4f · · Score: 1

      "My new computer came with windows 7. Windows 7 is much more user friendly than Windows Vista. I don't like that!" - Sheldon Cooper

  16. VLC already works on Windows8 by Dunge · · Score: 3, Informative

    Windows8 desktop is still the same old desktop and works just fine. Metro applications are useless.

  17. Is it even possible? by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    I'm somewhat familiar with the terms and conditions involved w/Windows Store apps, and my first reaction was, "Is this even possible?"

    Assuming you think having VLC run in TIFKAM (The Interface Formerly Known As Metro) is an important/necessary thing (I guess some people want that), they're talking about having people pledge thousands of dollars for what is essentially a shot in the dark. The Kickstarter page lists many of my own concerns:

    A goal of this port is the inclusion in the Windows Store. While we think it is feasible, there is a significant number of forbidden API calls, so in theory, VLC for Windows 8 might not be applicable for the store. We will do our best to achieve a successful publication on the store, so side loading isn't needed.
    VLC for Windows 8 will be licensed under both the GPLv2+ and the LGPL2.1+ depending on the respective code functionality. It is still subject to thorough checks whether these licenses are compatible with the Windows Store's terms of service. Publication on the store depends on the results of this investigation.

    Note that the new "official" name for TIFKAM apps is "Windows Store Apps." You're meant to load them from the Windows Store. That's supposed to be part of what makes TIFKAM apps "so great." All of the apps in the Windows Store have been vetted by Microsoft, thus they're guaranteed to have met a lot of conditions. An app that doesn't meet these conditions doesn't get to be in the Store.

    These conditions include UI and performance standards. From what I've seen of the VLC UI, there is no way that it will be accepted by Microsoft if it wants to include all of its current features and settings. Even apps that do comply seem to have a hard time getting approved. The VLC guys say they're using "forbidden API calls" -- forget about it. They will not get that app running on Windows RT, and I doubt there's a snowball's chance in hell of getting it approved for the Windows Store.

    No approval, no Windows Store. No Windows Store, no Windows Store app. There are ways to sideload TIFKAM apps, but they're designed for enterprise customers. As I understand it, to make it possible to sideload apps on a Windows 8 machine, you need to install a special product key on each client machine to allow that. Regular customers can't sideload apps -- or, if there's a way to do it, it involves some elaborate hack.

    So in a nutshell, if the VLC group can't get its TIFKAM app into the Windows Store, it's basically dead in the water. They can develop it, but the only people who will be able to deploy it will be the 5% of users who are willing to do whatever ugly, dangerous hacks are necessary to sideload apps onto their Windows 8 machines. Microsoft has cautioned that it might get even harder to sideload apps in future versions of Windows, too.

    So remind me again what we're paying for, here? For a total blind gamble?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Is it even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A goal of this port is the inclusion in the Windows Store. While we think it is feasible, there is a significant number of forbidden API calls, so in theory, VLC for Windows 8 might not be applicable for the store. We will do our best to achieve a successful publication on the store, so side loading isn't needed.
      VLC for Windows 8 will be licensed under both the GPLv2+ and the LGPL2.1+ depending on the respective code functionality. It is still subject to thorough checks whether these licenses are compatible with the Windows Store's terms of service. Publication on the store depends on the results of this investigation.

      Windows Store licensing is explicitly F/LOSS compatible. Specifically, the portions of the license which control distribution (and are therefore incompatible with open source software) may be waived by any developer who wishes to publish under any OSI-approved license. This exemption is contained in the Windows Store agreement itself.

      Note that the new "official" name for TIFKAM apps is "Windows Store Apps." You're meant to load them from the Windows Store. That's supposed to be part of what makes TIFKAM apps "so great." All of the apps in the Windows Store have been vetted by Microsoft, thus they're guaranteed to have met a lot of conditions. An app that doesn't meet these conditions doesn't get to be in the Store.

      These conditions include UI and performance standards. From what I've seen of the VLC UI, there is no way that it will be accepted by Microsoft if it wants to include all of its current features and settings. Even apps that do comply seem to have a hard time getting approved. The VLC guys say they're using "forbidden API calls" -- forget about it. They will not get that app running on Windows RT, and I doubt there's a snowball's chance in hell of getting it approved for the Windows Store.

      There are already media player apps, including ones that use third-party codecs, present on the Windows Store. I see no reason why those other developers should be able to do so and VLC should not. As for the UI concern, I don't actually think that would be a problem. It would require some work, to be sure, and probably some use of cascading interface to access the less-used features (which are discouraged but not prohibited), but I think it could be done. The core features wouldn't be a problem at all. The only really hard requirement of Store apps, from a UI perspective, is that they must be controllable using touch and they must support use of the OS-provided Settings charm for accessing application options. Also, why do you think that getting the app on RT is going to be particularly hard? It's just a recompile from the x86 code, unless you've got some assembly in there. VLC has already been ported to ARM, so the compilation isn't the hard part. If you want the app to be able to run in the background, you have to set a few additional flags, but that's trivial and supported.

      No approval, no Windows Store. No Windows Store, no Windows Store app. There are ways to sideload TIFKAM apps, but they're designed for enterprise customers. As I understand it, to make it possible to sideload apps on a Windows 8 machine, you need to install a special product key on each client machine to allow that. Regular customers can't sideload apps -- or, if there's a way to do it, it involves some elaborate hack.

      So in a nutshell, if the VLC group can't get its TIFKAM app into the Windows Store, it's basically dead in the water. They can develop it, but the only people who will be able to deploy it will be the 5% of users who are willing to do whatever ugly, dangerous hacks are necessary to sideload apps onto their Windows 8 machines. Microsoft has cautioned that it might get even harder to sideload apps in future versions of Windows, too.

      "As you understand it" is wrong. The so-called "elaborate" and "

  18. Ports by KenP40 · · Score: 1

    If it takes as long to port as it did/does for GTV, don't hold your breath. After saying the code was complete, there still isn't a release for those processors. Got some donations for that too. Obviously, no performance clause involved.

  19. finally a reason to switch to mplayer by someones · · Score: 1

    These guiys dont seem to care about winbloat and their walledgarden 2.0
    Now i wont even need to think of, what to use: mplayer or vlc.
    vlc just disqualified itself.

  20. Cash grab to kickstart stuff they would do anyways by oneiron · · Score: 1

    They see a vulnerable market segment of enthusiastic users who are grasping at straws, and they know they can rake in a little cash from it. It's smart, and it will probably work out pretty well. Knowing VLC's cross-platform habit, I'm imagining the work that comes out of this will benefit other phone/tablet platforms that use metro-like mechanics more effectively than windows 8...ahem...android/ios.

  21. Why pay to help out Microsoft? by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see how this helps average Windows users in any way. Most people who have a choice will be staying with Windows 7, and even those who are stuck with Windows 8 for whatever reason can still run VLC just fine on the Desktop. (Like all other x86 software it won't run on WinRT, but WinRT is dead on arrival.) Metro needs to be killed quickly, and it's baffling as to why an open source project would try to prop it up.

    If VLC wants to fund a Kickstarter, putting more resources into Blu-Ray menu support would be a much better choice. This is one thing that open-source software still can't do, and is one of the remaining barriers to a truly competitive open-source media player.

    1. Re:Why pay to help out Microsoft? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this helps average Windows users in any way. Most people who have a choice will be staying with Windows 7, and even those who are stuck with Windows 8 for whatever reason can still run VLC just fine on the Desktop. (Like all other x86 software it won't run on WinRT, but WinRT is dead on arrival.) Metro needs to be killed quickly, and it's baffling as to why an open source project would try to prop it up.

      You are delusional. VLC is popular because it's a free player available on Windows that Just Plays Anything. On open source platforms, there are many others. Without it, Metro users will just use something else. Yes, there will be Metro users regardless of you and your ridiculous intent to kill it.

      If VLC wants to fund a Kickstarter, putting more resources into Blu-Ray menu support would be a much better choice.

      You mean like paying royalties to whoever owns the patents?

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  22. I applaud this by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    ...and I wish them the best, really, but as I won't be using Windows 8 either at home or at work, I don't see how this affects me.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  23. Re:Fashion disaster by neminem · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would totally buy a "Clippy is my co-pilot" shirt to wear ironically. Preferably one that had a picture of Clippy piloting a plane into a cliff. ... Dang it, now I really want that shirt. I'm sad that it doesn't seem to actually exist.

  24. Why? by michealPW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This has never made any sense to me whatsoever

    Why do FOSS developers waste their time porting their hard work to Windows, of all platforms? Windows use have access to anything they want whereas Linux and UNIX-like users do not. Even if they wanted the proprietary crap offered to Windows users, in many cases it's not an option for us.

    So... Lets make Windows even more appealing by porting the good FOSS applications to Windows? Brilliant...

    Here's a crazy idea.. Why don't we just work on making VLC better for the Linux users? You know, it's firefox pluggin is a unkept POS... But yea, lets divert our attention to porting to Windows 8 (rolls eyes)

  25. I agree by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2

    Just don't click on the "native" apps. But I don't see why VLC would want to go that direction.

  26. MPC-HC! by antdude · · Score: 2

    What about Media Player Classic Home Cinema? I use both. I use MPC-HC more than VLC. Both are great.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:MPC-HC! by gman003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both are indeed great.

      Normally, I prefer MPC. It's faster and lighter, or at least it feels like it. But VLC has a few features MPC doesn't:

      * Streaming. The main thing I used VLC for was streaming to an AirPort without installing iTunes, because iTunes is evil. A recent update unfortunately broke this, but I haven't checked if they fixed recently.
      * Blu-Ray. There's probably some way to do this in MPC, but I can't figure it out.

      Both of them are in my "immediate install" pack, along with other useful things like Notepad++ and 7zip. I wonder how hard it would be to get Microsoft to just bundle them in. It's not like Notepad makes them much money.

    2. Re:MPC-HC! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah, I don't use those features yet...

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  27. media library / playlists by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    They haven't got the media library and playlists working at all well in the normal app so its not a good advert for what they might achieve in windows 8...yes sure I could just fix the code instead of moaning...if I ever get any time...

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
  28. Re:Sorry but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apart from the fact that Windows 8 is a crap product to start with that also actively tramples on our privacy and forces unwanted ads on the user

    How does Windows 8 trample privacy and force ads on the user? Any features that report data back to Microsoft can be turned off at install time, and all data they send is non identifiable, and not used for advertising purposes, and is clearly spelled out in the privacy policy, which is also available to read offline during install. Further, and ads in the OS are part of free apps that can be installed and are completely nonessential.

    You want to talk about ads and privacy, look no further than Ubuntu and Amazon spyware, which integrates both ads and privacy invasion directly into core OS components right on the desktop. Yes, this can also be turned off, but I think that's a little more offensive than ads in nonessential content-driven apps and games, because A) it's not available to disable at install time. At no time does Ubuntu spell out what's it's doing with your data and present a clear concise policy on the data they collect. And B) not only is amazon getting your data, but potentially the other 24 sources listed here. And what's worse, each entity has their own policy on data they collect; Ubuntu sends out your personal search data, and washes their hands of the situation. So if you want to know how these companies are handling you data, be prepared to read upwards of 20 privacy statements.

    First fix the privacy mess on your own turf. Then you can come and complain about Microsoft.

  29. Re:No thanks.. by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Why are there scroll bars on a touch device if they're not meant to be used as part of the navigation method? One thing I've noticed on the iPad is that there typically aren't scroll bars (or, at least, buttons) -- leading the user to intuitively use dragging/flicking.

  30. Re:response thus far by Seumas · · Score: 1

    That's the one benefit of crowd-sourcing. I may detest something, but if there is a market willing to support it and pay for it, then clearly it's of enough value to do.

    Though, whether it involves developer hours that could be better spent on other aspects of the software remains a valid point.

  31. Re:Improper use of Kickstarter by Seumas · · Score: 2

    One thing I've learned after the most recent year of Kickstarter projects is that they clearly don't give much of a fuck. The 5% fee is all the same, on their end.

  32. Re:Win 9? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You UID is low enough that you were probably around for Windows ME. The death of Microsoft has been thus far greatly exaggerated.

  33. Not worth it by na1led · · Score: 1

    Only contribution I have made on Kickstarter is for Leisure Suit Larry Cums Again.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  34. Screw that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Have MS pay them to do this. As it is, they are paying other app builders to move to Windows. So they can do this as well.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  35. Re:No thanks.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    Why are there scroll bars on a touch device if they're not meant to be used as part of the navigation method?

    ..because its also a mouse device, so they ARE meant to be used as part of the navigation method... with a mouse.

    Doesnt take a genius...

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  36. Re:Fashion disaster by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    This needs to happen.

  37. Re:Fashion disaster by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I would totally buy a "Clippy is my co-pilot" shirt to wear ironically. Preferably one that had a picture of Clippy piloting a plane into a cliff. ... Dang it, now I really want that shirt. I'm sad that it doesn't seem to actually exist.

    Begin a Kickstarter...

  38. Re:Copyfree HTML5 Video Bloated Copyleft Crap by s73v3r · · Score: 1

    You have fun with that. In the mean time, I'd like a player that can actually play the videos I have.

  39. Re:No thanks.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Why are there scroll bars on a touch device if they're not meant to be used as part of the navigation method?

    To indicate the current position in the list?

  40. Re:Fashion disaster by neminem · · Score: 1

    I don't really know any t-shirt artists, though. If you know any that could do the idea justice, maybe you should start the Kickstarter, and I'll send money to it. :p

  41. Re:Fashion disaster by surmak · · Score: 1

    Photoshop + Cafepress = shirt now exists.

  42. Because! by alexo · · Score: 1

    Why do FOSS developers waste their time porting their hard work to Windows, of all platforms?

    Because they want to.

  43. VLC streamer still up by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Didn't the iOS version get taken down due to conflicts with the licensing of VLC and the iOS App Store? Wouldn't the exact same thing happen here?

    There is still an app on the app store called VLC Streamer, that plays different media types...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Wrong yourself by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Your link is from 2010! There are a ton of GPL based apps in the app store, so it's quite obviously YOU who is wrong.

    In reality Apple is not taking down any GPL based apps, it's only when other copyright holders enter the picture complaining there start to be issues and Apple may well just take something down until issues are resolved.

    But for most GPLv2 projects there is no issue, because most shared code is built with the idea that other coders can use it for anything.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  45. OSS is fine by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Thus there was some bad blood there that moved some people away from GPL.. I worry that stunts like this might push people further away, which could potentially diminish the role of OSS in these new environments...

    Nah, they just move to BSD style licenses instead which are less restrictive. Most people contribute back code so it works out.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  46. No, you have that wrong. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Thus, the GPLs right for everyone to modify becomes the right for a few hobbyists to tinker, i.e. Tivoization.

    Any developer could download and tinker for free. XCode is free, the simulator is free.

    If they want to run it on a device they have to pay $99 to do so. But that is not restricted, anyone can sign up.

    If your complaint made any sense then you'd also have to say ALL GPL code is being "tivolized" because people have to buy computers to compile the code on.

    Any rational stance on the true meaning of GPL should staunchly remain about source availability, and that is it. That is the thing the GPL is fighting for, not this grey world of which device you can build it for specifically as is.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  47. Clause is for pre-release Apple API only by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in the TOS for the Apple Store or the developer program there is (was?) a clause that prohibits you from sharing code, tips, hints, know-how,

    That is ONLY true for pre-release software from Apple. That is, if you use a new API in a version of IOS not publicly released you are not supposed to show code or talk about it.

    But once the new version of iOS is public, you can share any code you like based on it, and say whatever you like. Since you cannot publicly release a GPL app on anything except a public version of iOS there are no prohibitions on releasing current source.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  48. Re:Worst Kickstarter Ever? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    The reason we lost the Start menu in the first place is because Microsoft added the Start menu search field, people started using it, and then they cited that according to their research, nobody used the actual menu anymore.

    Ergo, if we quietly ignore Metro and don't complain about it, they will probably come to the conclusion that we are now "using" Metro and use that to justify killing off another part of the formerly perfectly-functional desktop.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  49. Re:Windows 8 is OK? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    The Windows 8 GUI reminds me of Windows 3.1. Sometimes I think it's full-circle, then sometimes I think it's full-circle-jerk...

    Unless you have a Universal Program That Does Everything, you'll need to move stuff between windows. I don't see how the native W8 interface facilitates that.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  50. Re:No thanks.. by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

    Yes, I have some Android apps with scroll "bars". (Actually, the right hand side of the screen is the scroll bar; the only thing that gets drawn in the position indicator nubbin).

    On the other hand, the position indicator can actually be grabbed and dragged, which is good for scrolling through very long lists where the whole list is dozens or hundreds of screen-heights long.