Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GStreamer 1.2 Feature Release Is Now Available

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
    Wow, what a bunch of anti-KDE, anti-C++, anti whatever trolling.
    There's a simple solution for that: add Hoton to your ignore list.

    Comment


    • #17
      Ah, thank you all! Hope Pitivi starts releasing more often! Cheers!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Honton View Post
        No. It was an abstraction layer needed by Qt to serve different DRM platforms to the paying customers. Later it was tossed over the wall and adopted by KDE for reasons unknown to man kind. LSD might have been involved.
        No, that is an absolute, blatant lie. Phonon was originally developed by KDE, then adopted by Qt. But it has always been primarily a KDE project, developed primarily by KDE developers.
        Last edited by TheBlackCat; 09-25-2013, 05:08 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kigurai View Post
          Why is there three ways to do the same(?) thing? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of an abstraction layer? To be clear, I am curious, not trolling.
          Phonon is a high-level abstraction layer designed to make it very easy to make simple audio or video players or recorders. It intentionally lacks a lot of advanced or low-level functionality because it is intended for more basic tasks. For example you probably wouldn't want to make a non-linear video editor out of it.

          QtMultimedia is a middle-level abstraction layer. It provides more advanced features and more control but also makes it more difficult to implement basic functionality.

          QtGstreamer is just a Qt-style C++ wrapper around Gstreamer, and thus is very low-level. It basically replicates the Gstreamer API but in a manner more suitable for C++ developers. It also adds some basic tools to make it easier to incorporate Gstreamer into Qt applications. It provides much more control and much more advanced features, but also requires a lot more work to get basic media player functionality.

          So if you want to add a video preview to a file browser, or have a basic music player, then Phonon is the way to go. If you want access to the raw media data when you do the playback, you probably want QtMultimedia. If you want to do a lot of complex processing for your video or audio you probably want QtGstreamer.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by wargames View Post
            I hope it is backwards compatible with 1.0 since I hate having different versions of the same thing...
            It is. Only thing it broke was gstreamer-vaapi and clutter-gst hardware decoder support (which uses gstreamer-vaapi) since it used experimental library from gst-plugins-bad, which got removed in 1.2 release. Totem, Cheese, Rhythmbox work just fine (no ABI break either).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Honton View Post
              And how does this make it a lie?
              "No. It was an abstraction layer needed by Qt to serve different DRM platforms to the paying customers."

              No, it wasn't.

              "Later it was tossed over the wall and adopted by KDE for reasons unknown to man kind."

              It was never "tossed over the wall", nor was it "adopted by KDE". It was created by KDE for KDE.

              Originally posted by Honton View Post
              It ended up being CLAed or CAed.
              Do you have a source for that?

              Originally posted by Honton View Post
              Do your home work.
              So says the person who didn't even know where phonon came from.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                Are you claiming Qt would let free code go into Qt? Haha Qt won't accept free code. It needs to be turned non-free by the means of CLA or a copyright transfer. I suggest you go look up the copyright notice from Phonon on its time for "adoption".

                That is the difference between you and me. I knpw what Im talking about and know Phonon's history.
                Actually, no, you are not. The code keeps to be GPL licensed and there is no copyright transfer (which is in many European countries not possible anyways). As said in other threads before, you are not a lawyer, so your interpretations of the licenses and CLAs/CAs are meaningless. Now go troll someone else.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Honton View Post
                  This is ridiculous. No GPL code enters Qt. It has to rooadly licensed to Digia. That is what the CLA fuss is about!
                  Qt is licensed under a commercial and open source license (GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1).
                  https://qt-project.org/products/licensing
                  Even for a troll like you this shouldn't be hard to understand, but I am not expecting anything from you.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Honton View Post
                    What are you so confused about? Do you really think Qt would merge up GPL code? No way, they want a non-free broad license for the code. That is why you are asked to sign the CLA. How hard can it be to understand such simple things?
                    Lying again, as usual. All Qt code must be dual-licensed GPLv2.0 and LGPLv2.1. They will not accept any code under any circumstances that is not under both of those licenses.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      Let me ask you the same thing. Do you really think Qt would accept your GPL+LGPLed code? That would imply Free software is acceptable for Qt
                      Completely ignoring everything I said, as usual.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Honton View Post
                        Please answer the question? Do you really think Digia wants your free code?
                        I already answered the question. I am not going to repeat it. You refused to read it the first time, I see no reason to think repeating it will improve the situation.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It's the same way of adoption as it is done with webkit. Now let me try to apply your logic: webkit is not free software, because otherwise Digia would not have merged it into Qt. Gnome heavily integrates with webkit-gtk, which also incorporates webkit (that apple crap, you know). Now you also can say, that gnome uses f** non-free software. Agreed?

                          And if you know so much about phonons history, you also should know that phonon actually was developed by kde developers to get away with relying on one solution for audio (just remember arts). As it turned out to be quite good Qt decided to make it available for everyone using qt and bundled it. They merged kdes phonon from time to time to stay up2date.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Honton View Post
                            Please answer the question? Do you really think Digia wants your free code?
                            Maybe we let Honton himself answer this question:
                            Originally posted by Honton View Post
                            It gives KDE the right to re-license the LGPLed free version for linux
                            You just debunked yourself.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Honton View Post
                              The Qt CLA is what makes Digia saying no to free software patches
                              So LGPL is a non-free license now? Just get over it, you outed yourself officially as a mindless troll.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                                Nobody claims LGPL is non-free. Are you able to understand the simple FACT that the Qt CLA asks for an additional broad license which by nature is non-free, so that Qt can be dual licensed? If not, then good luck
                                Fixed that for you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X