|
Linux Media Centres
Jeremy “Samba” Allison recounts his experiences
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28984> putting his audio and video collections into a more easily-accessible online form. Like many tech types, he tends to get roped into providing support for less- clued-up friends and family. And like any savvy tech type, the less support he has to give them, the happier he is. So he likes to set them up with low- maintenance Linux-based systems. |
Re: Linux Media Centres
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Jeremy Samba Allison recounts his experiences > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28984> putting his audio and video > collections into a more easily-accessible online form. > > Like many tech types, he tends to get roped into providing support > for less- clued-up friends and family. And like any savvy tech type, > the less support he has to give them, the happier he is. So he likes > to set them up with low- maintenance Linux-based systems. > Well, let's see. I have 22 programs in my "Sound and Video folder". I have three kernels, RT (for the tricky stuff, editting and so on) and not RT (for normal background listening). Of those 22 programs about 3 - 4 are mixers and controllers of some sort, three or four are audio players and about the same number are audio/video players, there are several meters, audio editors, MIDI players and other more specific use programs (eg RoseGarden). And so on. This is all because some players don't play some audio/video files and others do. If Totem doesn't play it (and Totem has trouble with many, many files) I use something else or play it in something like VLC. And some are because I need MIDI for the MIDI instruments and that opens a whole new can of worms (sequencers, synths and so on). Audio and video on Linux is *NOT* in any way simple. I've never found an audio/video player that flawlessly plays everything. Also managing audio files is a nightmare which is only made worse by the idiosyncratic programs that are around to manage your collection. Oh and that 22 programs doesn't take into account the command line programs that I use. Cheers, Cliff -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
Re: Linux Media Centres
Allistar wrote:
> Enkidu wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> Jeremy “Samba” Allison recounts his experiences >>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28984> putting his audio and video >>> collections into a more easily-accessible online form. >>> >>> Like many tech types, he tends to get roped into providing support >>> for less- clued-up friends and family. And like any savvy tech type, >>> the less support he has to give them, the happier he is. So he likes >>> to set them up with low- maintenance Linux-based systems. >>> >> Well, let's see. I have 22 programs in my "Sound and Video folder". I >> have three kernels, RT (for the tricky stuff, editting and so on) and >> not RT (for normal background listening). Of those 22 programs about 3 - >> 4 are mixers and controllers of some sort, three or four are audio >> players and about the same number are audio/video players, there are >> several meters, audio editors, MIDI players and other more specific use >> programs (eg RoseGarden). And so on. >> >> This is all because some players don't play some audio/video files and >> others do. If Totem doesn't play it (and Totem has trouble with many, >> many files) I use something else or play it in something like VLC. And >> some are because I need MIDI for the MIDI instruments and that opens a >> whole new can of worms (sequencers, synths and so on). >> >> Audio and video on Linux is *NOT* in any way simple. > > That's definitely true for video. There is a dearth of decent video editing > applications available. > >> I've never found an >> audio/video player that flawlessly plays everything. Also managing audio >> files is a nightmare which is only made worse by the idiosyncratic >> programs that are around to manage your collection. > > I find Amarok to be quite nice. I'm stuck with 1.4 at work because KDE4 has > features missing that I use. > Amarok is the least worst, but its idiosyncratic interface drives me mad. Also it requires the KDE libraries which is another load of baggage that I didn't need. Cheers, Cliff -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
Re: Linux Media Centres
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:52:41 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> Jeremy “Samba” Allison recounts his experiences >> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28984> putting his audio and video >> collections into a more easily-accessible online form. >> >> Like many tech types, he tends to get roped into providing support for >> less- clued-up friends and family. And like any savvy tech type, the >> less support he has to give them, the happier he is. So he likes to set >> them up with low- maintenance Linux-based systems. >> > Well, let's see. I have 22 programs in my "Sound and Video folder". I > have three kernels, RT (for the tricky stuff, editting and so on) and > not RT (for normal background listening). Of those 22 programs about 3 - > 4 are mixers and controllers of some sort, three or four are audio > players and about the same number are audio/video players, there are > several meters, audio editors, MIDI players and other more specific use > programs (eg RoseGarden). And so on. > > This is all because some players don't play some audio/video files and > others do. If Totem doesn't play it (and Totem has trouble with many, > many files) I use something else or play it in something like VLC. And > some are because I need MIDI for the MIDI instruments and that opens a > whole new can of worms (sequencers, synths and so on). > > Audio and video on Linux is *NOT* in any way simple. I've never found an > audio/video player that flawlessly plays everything. Also managing audio > files is a nightmare which is only made worse by the idiosyncratic > programs that are around to manage your collection. > > Oh and that 22 programs doesn't take into account the command line > programs that I use. Isn't it good to have such a choice of good and varied applications available for you to use. And they are included with the OS, And you are free to uninstall any or all of them and install something else if that takes your fancy! Can you say the same about the multi-media applications bundled with MS Windows? -- "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean" |
Re: Linux Media Centres
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:31:35 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
> Amarok is the least worst, but its idiosyncratic interface drives me > mad. Also it requires the KDE libraries which is another load of baggage > that I didn't need. Well it *IS* a KDE application developed by the KDE project! Have you tried using Kaffeine as a media player? -- "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean" |
Re: Linux Media Centres
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:51:16 +0000 (UTC), Sweetpea <Heritage@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:52:41 +1300, Enkidu wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> Jeremy Samba Allison recounts his experiences >>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28984> putting his audio and video >>> collections into a more easily-accessible online form. >>> >>> Like many tech types, he tends to get roped into providing support for >>> less- clued-up friends and family. And like any savvy tech type, the >>> less support he has to give them, the happier he is. So he likes to set >>> them up with low- maintenance Linux-based systems. >>> >> Well, let's see. I have 22 programs in my "Sound and Video folder". I >> have three kernels, RT (for the tricky stuff, editting and so on) and >> not RT (for normal background listening). Of those 22 programs about 3 - >> 4 are mixers and controllers of some sort, three or four are audio >> players and about the same number are audio/video players, there are >> several meters, audio editors, MIDI players and other more specific use >> programs (eg RoseGarden). And so on. >> >> This is all because some players don't play some audio/video files and >> others do. If Totem doesn't play it (and Totem has trouble with many, >> many files) I use something else or play it in something like VLC. And >> some are because I need MIDI for the MIDI instruments and that opens a >> whole new can of worms (sequencers, synths and so on). >> >> Audio and video on Linux is *NOT* in any way simple. I've never found an >> audio/video player that flawlessly plays everything. Also managing audio >> files is a nightmare which is only made worse by the idiosyncratic >> programs that are around to manage your collection. >> >> Oh and that 22 programs doesn't take into account the command line >> programs that I use. > >Isn't it good to have such a choice of good and varied applications available for you to use. And they >are included with the OS, And you are free to uninstall any or all of them and install something else if >that takes your fancy! Yes. It gives me a real viagra-type boner. >Can you say the same about the multi-media applications bundled with MS Windows? Sure, like those 22 programs were "bundled" with the OS. |
Re: Linux Media Centres
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:02:43 +1300, Cima wrote:
>>Isn't it good to have such a choice of good and varied applications >>available for you to use. And they are included with the OS, And you are >>free to uninstall any or all of them and install something else if that >>takes your fancy! > > Yes. It gives me a real viagra-type boner. Really??? Have you thought of doing something to remedy that fetish? -- "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean" |
Re: Linux Media Centres
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:52:41 +1300, Enkidu wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> Jeremy “Samba” Allison recounts his experiences >>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28984> putting his audio and video >>> collections into a more easily-accessible online form. >>> >>> Like many tech types, he tends to get roped into providing >>> support for less- clued-up friends and family. And like any savvy >>> tech type, the less support he has to give them, the happier he >>> is. So he likes to set them up with low- maintenance Linux-based >>> systems. >>> >> Well, let's see. I have 22 programs in my "Sound and Video folder". >> I have three kernels, RT (for the tricky stuff, editting and so on) >> and not RT (for normal background listening). Of those 22 programs >> about 3 - 4 are mixers and controllers of some sort, three or four >> are audio players and about the same number are audio/video >> players, there are several meters, audio editors, MIDI players and >> other more specific use programs (eg RoseGarden). And so on. >> >> This is all because some players don't play some audio/video files >> and others do. If Totem doesn't play it (and Totem has trouble with >> many, many files) I use something else or play it in something like >> VLC. And some are because I need MIDI for the MIDI instruments and >> that opens a whole new can of worms (sequencers, synths and so on). >> >> >> Audio and video on Linux is *NOT* in any way simple. I've never >> found an audio/video player that flawlessly plays everything. Also >> managing audio files is a nightmare which is only made worse by the >> idiosyncratic programs that are around to manage your collection. >> >> Oh and that 22 programs doesn't take into account the command line >> programs that I use. > > Isn't it good to have such a choice of good and varied applications > available for you to use. And they are included with the OS, And you > are free to uninstall any or all of them and install something else > if that takes your fancy! > > Can you say the same about the multi-media applications bundled with > MS Windows? > Lawrence claimed that Linux audio/video stuff was simple enough to give to novices. In view of the fact that I often have to try a couple of appls to run audio/video stuff even of the same sort, I disagreed. Novices do not appreciate the depth of choice. They want one appl to do it all, and Linux appls are not able to do that. Cheers, Cliff -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
Re: Linux Media Centres
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:31:35 +1300, Enkidu wrote: > >> Amarok is the least worst, but its idiosyncratic interface drives me >> mad. Also it requires the KDE libraries which is another load of baggage >> that I didn't need. > > Well it *IS* a KDE application developed by the KDE project! > > Have you tried using Kaffeine as a media player? > No. I loathe and despise the KDE stuff as a rule, unless there is no alternative. I don't like the way that KDE appls do things. Cheers, Cliff -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
Re: Linux Media Centres
In message <GJWdnZg8RuqcI97WnZ2dnUVZ_v9i4p2d@giganews.com>, Allistar wrote:
> I have been a KDE user for many years but am considering ditching it > because of the KDE4.4 fiasco. WHAT KDE4.4 fiasco? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.