Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VLC 2.0.5 "Twoflower" Has Experimental Blu-Ray Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    Bah! VDPAU -- you might as well suck off steve balmer if you like closed source garbage that much.
    No, it's you behaving like an open source jihadist who spoil the idea of open source by being rude fanatics of it. Also, vdpau is as closed as a BSD license.
    By being such an asshole you discredit yourself and what you're saying. Remember this for your future posts.

    Comment


    • #12
      I was just offering a contrasting experience.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
        I switched to vlc player because for me it seems to have the best support fo vaapi though VLC + vaapi works flawlessly for me on intel HD4000
        VLC never worked really well for me with vaapi, I prefer smplayer but there are other alternatives
        https://www.linuxsystems.it/2012/05/...ideo-decoding/
        ## VGA ##
        AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
        Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          I believe the way VLC works requires them to read the decoded video back to the CPU so they can perform post-processing, streaming, etc. on it, and VDPAU doesn't allow this.
          Of course it does. No one has implemented it in their software AFAIK, but VDPAU has had the ability since the very beginning.

          Also, the way VLC does it makes it less efficient (more CPU usage) than players which display the video directly. Ideally, a player would provide both modes - readback to allow software filtering, or direct display for maximum efficiency.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by mark45 View Post
            No, it's you behaving like an open source jihadist who spoil the idea of open source by being rude fanatics of it. Also, vdpau is as closed as a BSD license.
            By being such an asshole you discredit yourself and what you're saying. Remember this for your future posts.
            You behave like a slut, mark45. How the fsck is he spoiling idea of opensource? Does GPL'ed Linux spoil idea of opensource? You have no fscking idea, yet you run around and bullsh!t people.

            Its is BSD who can easily be integrated inside of proprietary blob. BSD is not open, it is free to own! Just look here - http://www.openbsd.org/39.html The BSD idiocracy even portraits Linux full of blobs, but itself staying clean. But tell me, who could be blobbified easier - GPL or BSD? BSD, because its not protected in any way. BSD is so proud of its 3 clauses instead of 5 pages, but its only protection of open that results in such difference. There is no other difference.

            BSD is anarchy, how long does freedom in anarchy last and who is becomes the ruler? Give me some samples. How much does it last in anarchy till slave handling and bandits appear?

            Non-GPL and other not-protected licenses are the FUEL for proprietary software. BSD is the fuel for proprietary software.
            One can make same money without going proprietary. You receive same software, but with different license. You become much more possibilities with your products. What is your problem, that you allow yourself to be bumped and enjoy it?

            Clearly every license has right to exist, but don't spread the FUD.

            Be happy with your nvidia card by the way. I have sold mine yesterday and I am going to buy vishera system and radeon.
            Last edited by crazycheese; 12-19-2012, 07:04 AM.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
              but don't spread the FUD.
              Take your own advice.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Take your own advice.
                I have proven my points, hence its not FUD. Your happiness with nvidia blob is not a valid proof. Take my advice as well.
                So if you consider your proprietary puddle to be acceptable for everyone only because you like it, you are dead wrong.

                Comment


                • #18
                  So what if the nvidia driver is a proprietary blob? The topic is VDPAU. Which is not closed source. There is full documentation on how to implement it, and the source of the library is available. And there are *two* implementations - a closed one from nvidia, and an open one in Gallium3D.

                  Are you going to argue that XVMC is closed too? Nvidia has a closed implementation of that in their driver.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                    So what if the nvidia driver is a proprietary blob? The topic is VDPAU. Which is not closed source. There is full documentation on how to implement it, and the source of the library is available. And there are *two* implementations - a closed one from nvidia, and an open one in Gallium3D.

                    Are you going to argue that XVMC is closed too? Nvidia has a closed implementation of that in their driver.
                    Nothing. Yes, its not. Yes. Yes.
                    No. Doesn't concern me, because Nvidia is free to decide how to handle things.

                    The point is that when having choice between GPL and proprietary implementation of same functionality, GPL offers much more freedom and makes sure it stays this way. No one is forcing anyone to pick certain implementation however.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      The point is that when having choice between GPL and proprietary implementation of same functionality, GPL offers much more freedom and makes sure it stays this way. No one is forcing anyone to pick certain implementation however.
                      Neither Mesa nor Xorg are under GPL.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X