[MPlayer-users] Quicktime playback on MPlayer/Linux --Somevideos play in ultra-slow-motion?

[evert vorster]

To all the other readers of this list, please accept my apologies, I
really did not want to go in to a flame war.



On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Phil Rhodes <phil_rhodes at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Get off your high horse; you are presumptive and arrogant. Being a software
> engineer does not make you better than everyone else, despite the
Aah, but I am not a software engineer, I actually do some support for
a linux distrobution, Sorcerer, my spare time. For free. For no other
reason than that I like complex puzzles, and like the satisfaction
that I derive when I get something difficult right. I also derive some
small pleasure from knowing that someone else using said distro will
not have to jump through the same hoops.

Does that make me better than you? No. I just do not complain about
things I get for free, as I fully have the option of returning it for
a full refund.

:)

> I am, for the record, an engineer in the film and TV industry.
Which is why I am surprised that you are not using a Mac, as they
reportedly have the lion's share on video software, and pretty good
integration and easy software installation... if you buy from a
vendor. At my job we have some deal with IBM/Red Hat, and we have had
their engineers crawling all over our hardware/software when something
goes wrong. All software needed for us to do our work is installed and
working. Drivers are written and installed as/when we need them.
As you can appreciate, none of this is free, but a whole lot better
than what we could expect of either Mac or MS.

> I say again: I will happily pay Windows money for a Linux distro with
> Windows functionality. It does not exist; there seems to be no desire to
> make it exist.
Then buy one of the top 5 linux distrobutions with full support
contract. Any bugs you discover will be dealt with promptly! It will
even be cheaper than a Windows contract of the same nature.

> Which is absolutely fine. Nobody's being paid here. And this is perfectly
> sensible until people start screaming "ready for the desktop!" or "the
> deployment procedure works!". It is not ready for the desktop; the
> deployment procedures don't often work. You can have your lovely egalitarian
> opensource tree-hugging or you can have successful, usable, high-quality
> software; you cannot have both.
I beg to disagree. My linux box is fully tree-hugging compatible AND
the software is much higher grade software than what you could buy,
even if you had the money. Linux is the only software I run, and have
been using it as my desktop for many years now.

> There is in short no reason to make it work at all - so don't pretend it
> does when it so patently doesn't - and not only doesn't work now, but can
> probably never be made to work given the hellish political limbo in which
> the developers are forced to operate.
To be totally honest, I have never never been aware of this bug. I
doubt many users have. So, I guess this must not have been a big
enough itch to scratch? If this bug bothers you so very much, I bet
that there are developers that will gladly take a look at that code
for some renumeration.

> So tell me again, all this being the case, why exactly do you bother?
I really enjoy messing with software, and get enjoyment out of fixing
things that are broken.

If Linux annoys you so much, why do you bother?

-Evert-