If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 9/12/2019 12:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
You've just won the "Golden Shower Award". LOL!!! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 9/12/2019 6:13 PM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 5:31 p.m., Charlie Tuna wrote: In article , lid says... Wingnut wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video interviews. That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript. What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video? Too bad for you. That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't pre-installed. If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to install the codec which WILL play it. I've ran into that particular situation, and it never did say what was wrong or where to get the necessary libs or codecs. OpenSuse has a one-click install of VLC that does work. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-12 8:15 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video interviews. That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript. What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video? Too bad for you. That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't pre-installed. no it definitely does not. This is a clear lie on your part and I imagine that it comes from your general and habitual ignorance. Install Linux Mint and it will play everything; install something like Trisquel which is fully free and it might not play everything, but it will install free codecs that will. If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to install the codec which WILL play it. so much for more video formats, and that's the same for other oses. Windows 10 will not play h.265 out of the box unless you _purchase_ the codec but I imagine you didn't know that. You can download VLC and get the same functionality but that applies to Linux as well. Even without VLC though, the bundled video players like Dragon or Totem will automatically download the codecs whereas something like Movies & TV or Windows Media Player will only play sound and fart when it comes to playing the video. -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-12 11:19 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/12/2019 6:13 PM, Rabid Rogue wrote: On 2019-09-12 5:31 p.m., Charlie Tuna wrote: In article , lid says... Wingnut wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video interviews. That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript. What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video? Too bad for you. That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't pre-installed. If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to install the codec which WILL play it. I've ran into that particular situation, and it never did say what was wrong or where to get the necessary libs or codecs. OpenSuse has a one-click install of VLC that does work. I used OpenSuse a few times and I believe that, out of the box, it only includes software which is certified to be free. Even though most codecs now have free versions which work quite well, it's quite possible that OpenSuse, for some reason, doesn't make them available to the user unless they add a repository here and there. It's not my favorite distribution to say the least. -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video interviews. That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript. What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video? Too bad for you. That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't pre-installed. no it definitely does not. This is a clear lie on your part and I imagine that it comes from your general and habitual ignorance. Install Linux Mint and it will play everything; install something like Trisquel which is fully free and it might not play everything, but it will install free codecs that will. it won't play everything. platforms used for creating video, namely mac and windows, have the widest support of formats for obvious reasons. If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to install the codec which WILL play it. so much for more video formats, and that's the same for other oses. Windows 10 will not play h.265 out of the box unless you _purchase_ the codec but I imagine you didn't know that. what you clearly do *not* know is that macs have h.265 support in the os itself and can play *and* encode h.265 out of the box without any additional software, and third party apps do not need to do anything special either. You can download VLC and get the same functionality but that applies to Linux as well. Even without VLC though, the bundled video players like Dragon or Totem will automatically download the codecs whereas something like Movies & TV or Windows Media Player will only play sound and fart when it comes to playing the video. no need for vlc, and needing to download a codec means it *doesn't* play everything. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-13 12:23 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video interviews. That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript. What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video? Too bad for you. That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't pre-installed. no it definitely does not. This is a clear lie on your part and I imagine that it comes from your general and habitual ignorance. Install Linux Mint and it will play everything; install something like Trisquel which is fully free and it might not play everything, but it will install free codecs that will. it won't play everything. It won't play Blu-Ray and encrypted DVD (though that's very easy to remedy), that's about it. However, Windows won't play those two media types either. platforms used for creating video, namely mac and windows, have the widest support of formats for obvious reasons. Only after software and codecs have been purchased and installed. Once again, I'm talking about the OUT OF THE BOX experience. If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to install the codec which WILL play it. so much for more video formats, and that's the same for other oses. Windows 10 will not play h.265 out of the box unless you _purchase_ the codec but I imagine you didn't know that. what you clearly do *not* know is that macs have h.265 support in the os itself and can play *and* encode h.265 out of the box without any additional software, and third party apps do not need to do anything special either. There are lesser-known and lesser-used codecs that Mac OS will not run out of the box. If it includes h.265 support, that's great since it's very popular as a result of its tiny file size and excellent quality (identical to h.264 as far as I can tell). However, will your beloved play the obscure file encoded in Theora the way that Linux will successfully do? I doubt it. You can download VLC and get the same functionality but that applies to Linux as well. Even without VLC though, the bundled video players like Dragon or Totem will automatically download the codecs whereas something like Movies & TV or Windows Media Player will only play sound and fart when it comes to playing the video. no need for vlc, and needing to download a codec means it *doesn't* play everything. Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_ needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse doesn't play everything out of the box. -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With MarkShuttleworth
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that
I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible reasons: Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_ needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse doesn't play everything out of the box. GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video compression/decompression, and each contains every codec "out of the box." Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some codecs but others may not. But GNU/Linux is able, out of the box, to handle it all. Furthermore, the FOSS libraries of ffmpeg or libav also power much of Winblows/Apple software. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-13, F. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible reasons: Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_ needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse doesn't play everything out of the box. GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video compression/decompression, and each contains every codec "out of the box." Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some codecs but others may not. But GNU/Linux is able, out of the box, to handle it all. Furthermore, the FOSS libraries of ffmpeg or libav also power much of Winblows/Apple software. "In 2011, he created a minimal PC emulator written in pure JavaScript." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrice_Bellard Recognize the name? "Original author(s) Fabrice Bellard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Open_standards |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Il 12/09/19 16:41, Mr. Hand ha scritto:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:44:59 -0600, AnonLinuxUser wrote: On 9/11/2019 6:51 PM, Rabid Robot wrote: On 2019-09-11 4:19 p.m., Wingnut McSprocket wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." I, for one, thought that Unity was pretty good and that some of the ideas were pretty clever but yeah, the Linux zealots are pretty resistant to any kind of decent innovation. If it doesn't look like it's from the 90s or the early 70s, it's not worth using apparently. McSprocket nym looks more like a snit sock puppet than anything else. He's used McNuggets from what I recall. I agree it appears to be a snit sock puppet but in the slim chance that it's not I will offer my 2 cents. I think Shuttleworth is right, over the years, desktop Linux hasn't been able to offer anything substantial to the user experience that has been better than Windows already offers. At least not for the typical, non programmer user. Linux's advantages of cost and source code mean nothing to the average person ordering a PC via Amazon. That being said, the biggest obstacle to Linux's acceptance as a desktop system has been Windows being pre-installed on systems. not to say that, once preinstalled, Windows tries to prevent other system to disable its "locks" (safeboot, fastboot, other complacent, yes not compliant, complacent BIOS features ) who prevent the non-skilled curious to even grant a try to linux. Live CD/DVD experience cannot be compared with the speed and power and customization of an installed version : so just trying live versions arouse the sensation of intrinsical windows superiority. This is a huge disadvantage for Linux and coupled with the fact that Windows offers more, again useful to the average user, software, the user has no motivation to move to Linux. And moreover, most complacent vendors make void the warranty if one uninstall windows by force. but I agree that in some areas expecially professional windows-related SW park is wider and more mature. Hardware support, while not as much of a problem now, has definitely been a problem in the past and stunted Linux growth. Things like totally agree, with the addendum that "special hardware" (atypical niche hw, I meet this daily with whiteboards for school) still suffers from HW producers neglection Linux while they very promptly disclose their internals to Microsoft to produce taylored drivers. also my nokia mobile has a suite that runs only on win WinModems and WinPrinters, seriously moronic ideas IMHO, torpedoed Linux during the time frames where they were popular. Nvidia wasn't always friendly with Linux as well,although that has obviously changed. It might be too late though. I don't believe that fragmentation and multiple distributions have much of an effect, if any, in Linux adoption. here I don't agree : i think this is the "mature" point of wiew of a longstanding linux user. NOW I'm starting to feel familiar with a variety of distro more or less and perceive their substantial similitude under the hood. But in principle it was not so. The sensation was of great diversity and discomfort. For a newcomer this diversity in details (he still don't know they are such) creates indecision. One literally does not know where to start from (and generally gives a try to blazoned distro only (Ubuntu family is famous outside) A free market will sort itself out and the good will be accepted and the bad will disappear. The Linux community itself has also been a thorn in Linux's side. Again over the years and not so much now. Reputations are difficult to repair. As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text based system needing a command line to run. I skip on thi topic Sad but true. Personally, I think Linux has matured and will be fine for the majority of desktop users who aren't gamers or need specialized applications. again the variety is a strong enemy. There are in the FOSS too many variants, each rather limited, and versatile as a whole, which need a lot of exploration just to be discovered, as nobody makes them known out of the official distro repository. So to adapt to linux is slow even after years of almost exclusive use. And while I like the open source concept and believe it is going to grow in popularity and ultimately become the de facto system, it's going to take a while. The good news is Linux is extremely popular in the server, embedded device market as well as of course Android etc. I fear most not the attacks to linux in itself as a family of technologies, but to the freedom and open concepts : so attempts to swallow linux world spreading money in the proper places. -- 1) Resistere, resistere, resistere. 2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato) |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-13 1:21 p.m., F. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible reasons: Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_ needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse doesn't play everything out of the box. GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video compression/decompression, and each contains every codec "out of the box." Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some codecs but others may not. I doubt they would anymore. Back when ffmpeg was at 0.10, they had most of what they needed in that package and relied on proprietary for the rest. However, they're at 1.0 or higher now and should be able to support everything without anything additional. The support the current ffmpeg package contains, as far as I know, is complete and is completely FOSS. But GNU/Linux is able, out of the box, to handle it all. Furthermore, the FOSS libraries of ffmpeg or libav also power much of Winblows/Apple software. Exactly and absolutely. We can talk garbage about Linux as a whole because it has many flaws but some of the stuff it contains, in comparison to Windows and MacOS, is absolutely marvelous. A whole open-source operating system is sometimes not the best, but the stuff inside is worth at least a look. -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:07:05 +0100, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 10:41 a.m., Mr. Hand wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:44:59 -0600, AnonLinuxUser wrote: On 9/11/2019 6:51 PM, Rabid Robot wrote: On 2019-09-11 4:19 p.m., Wingnut McSprocket wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." I, for one, thought that Unity was pretty good and that some of the ideas were pretty clever but yeah, the Linux zealots are pretty resistant to any kind of decent innovation. If it doesn't look like it's from the 90s or the early 70s, it's not worth using apparently. McSprocket nym looks more like a snit sock puppet than anything else. He's used McNuggets from what I recall. I agree it appears to be a snit sock puppet but in the slim chance that it's not I will offer my 2 cents. I think Shuttleworth is right, over the years, desktop Linux hasn't been able to offer anything substantial to the user experience that has been better than Windows already offers. At least not for the typical, non programmer user. Linux's advantages of cost and source code mean nothing to the average person ordering a PC via Amazon. Exactly. Since none of the people buying hardware ever factor in the price of the operating system (since it's included on each computer), the benefit of Linux being free is worthless. It might be worthwhile if the person is using something like Vista and is shockingly resistant to the idea of buying more recent hardware, but people who aren't stubborn mules won't see the advantage. I don't buy more hardware for the OS, I buy it for the programs I run. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Soviet_Mario wrote:
again the variety is a strong enemy. It is not. Variety is an asset. There are in the FOSS too many variants, each rather limited, and versatile as a whole, which need a lot of exploration just to be discovered, as nobody makes them known out of the official distro repository. I don't think that anyone denies that some people, "newbies" in particular, would like less variety, more "standardization". This is true in many markets. However, we can't forget that, for many people, that would not work. Many people benefit from the more customized, optimized environment that FOSS allows. If it weren't for these advantages, they may as well be using Windows. Just because some people would like less choice, it doesn't mean that there is too much choice. Some people would like even more! -- 'Have you never heard someone say "There are too many things here I cant decide"??!?!?' - "OSS Culling Commitee" Chairman "Hadron" Quack |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-13, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 5:31 p.m., Charlie Tuna wrote: In article , lid says... Wingnut wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video interviews. That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript. What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video? Too bad for you. That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't pre-installed. If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to install the codec which WILL play it. If there is some sort of protection, there is always problem... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-13 1:21 p.m., F. Russell wrote: On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible reasons: Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_ needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse doesn't play everything out of the box. GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video compression/decompression, and each contains every codec "out of the box." Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some codecs but others may not. I doubt they would anymore. Back when ffmpeg was at 0.10, they had most of what they needed in that package and relied on proprietary for the rest. However, they're at 1.0 or higher now and should be able to support everything without anything additional. The support the current ffmpeg package contains, as far as I know, is complete and is completely FOSS. There is NVENC and NVDEC. If you attempted to build FFMPEG from source, you'd have noticed this. There's even hardware support for H.265 https://developer.nvidia.com/video-e...support-matrix I was not able to finish the build of FFMPEG, because of some kind of header problem. The tool delivering the indication of a header problem, was incapable of indicating just which file was causing the problem. So I had to give up. (And this was related to NVENC and NVDEC - I managed to slay the rest of the dragons.) And this happened, because the FFMPEG developers didn't really want to "track" what the NVidia people were doing, so invented a way of "ignoring" the issue. And the reason this started, is the release version of FFMPEG in the package manager, didn't have NVENC and NVDEC, and I wanted it added back in. And that's the challenge of FFMPEG. Is building it properly and switching on as many libs as the developers intended. I specifically wanted to see how much faster, in frames per second, the Linux NVENC and NVDEC run, because I have a suspicion the Windows version of FFMPEG isn't showing the best possible framerates. (The math says, on my system, it should be over the 330FPS I was getting.) So I wanted to compare a different environment to it, and see what kind of frame rate it could manage. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|