Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Oct 2006 19:43 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD After the flood of Fedora Core 6 and Ubuntu 6.10 reviews, here is a review of PC-BSD 1.3 Beta. "PC-BSD has improved quite a bit and the use of its open-source PBI packaging system is a great idea. Although it obviously means there might be a minor delay in newly released products being ported over to the PBI package system, novice users will rejoice because the wait is well worth it. PC-BSD is a well oiled machine with its quick response times, even if you don't have that much memory in your system. Its implementation of a clean interface is welcomed by me and not having a 3D enabled desktop is not something I really would worry about unless you are an eye-candy lover."
Thread beginning with comment 177469
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: still no easy drivers
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: still no easy drivers"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

"Ever wondered why all video web sites (Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain, etc...) use Flash instead of MPEG? Because Flash is present on every computer. Period."

Excuse me, but that's not true and you (should) know this. It can't be true because "Flash" is not available for every computer OS platform, please consider especially non-"Windows" and non-Linux platforms. Maybe "Flash" is present on some or even many computers, but not on all. Be careful using all-quantified statements - only one example against it will evaluate the statement the sentence as untrue.

I'd like to see the following solution: If "Flash" is availabe, use it. If not, display a "Download Video as MPEG" button (on the same page!) instead. That would be great and would lead Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain etc. to even more success and polularity. These services sould be available not just for "Windows" users, but for everyone.

"MPEG doesn't work on every computer, especially Linux (default installation without codecs)."

As far as I know - I am no Linux user, so I can't tell exactly - players like mplayer come with MPEG codecs. Default installations (like KDE or Gnome desktop environments), as they are used by many Linux distributions, seem to include MPEG codes, as well as other video formats. I'd be glad to have a corresponding statement from a Linux user.

Even non-Linux systems support MPEG, some of them even out of the box. So far, your statement, except the Linux part, is true.

"For Linux, if you don't want to use Flash, you need to use .ogg but then it doesn't work in 99% of Windows computers because users don't have the free .ogg codec installed."

This is a problem of MICROS~1. The OGG/Vorbis standard is widely used and the specifications are free. But I'm sure you can install the codecs if you want.

"So the best solution is Flash for online video."

No, it definitely isn't, as I was able to proof. Read carefully, please. (And I know, my english is not the best one, but it should serve here.)

As I mentioned, a "mixed solution" would be better - the alternative (but combined) use of "Flash" and a standard (!) format.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: still no easy drivers
by Joe User on Wed 1st Nov 2006 12:34 in reply to "RE[6]: still no easy drivers"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you stupid? This is the last time I repeat my self:

Excuse me, but that's not true and you (should) know this. It can't be true because "Flash" is not available for every computer

Yes, Flash is on every computer because every computer nowadays is connected to the Internet, and you can hardly use the Internet without Flash. So the first thing you do when you set up a new computer is install Flash. Flash is available for Windows, OS X and Linux at least. So this accounts for 99% of computers.

I'd like to see the following solution: If "Flash" is availabe, use it. If not, display a "Download Video as MPEG" button

Ok, but this doesn't solve your problem. A platform that doesn't support Flash isn't legally allowed to use the MPEG codec because of software patent. If you use MPEG on Linux/BSD, you are outlaw. Ever wondered why MPlayer codecs are hosted in Hungary?

That would be great and would lead Google Video, YouTube, BlueMontain etc. to even more success and polularity.

This would account for the 1% of users who use MS-DOS, and Google and YouTube are right not to care. They are companies made to make money, and they shouldn't bother, not to mention the overhead of having 2x more disk space used for just 1% of users.

players like mplayer come with MPEG codecs

Yes, but this is illegal in most countries. AFAIK, these codecs can only be legally used only on commercial OSes.

Even non-Linux systems support MPEG, some of them even out of the box.

Yes, but non-Linux systems (and Linux systems) have Flash (because people install it), so I don't see any benefit offering MPEG.

This is a problem of MICROS~1. The OGG/Vorbis standard is widely used and the specifications are free. But I'm sure you can install the codecs if you want.

Please, this is not MS's problem. Although Ogg Vorbis is excellent, MS doesn't give a f#ck. This is the user's problem. Of course you can install the codecs because they're free, but don't people install them? Because no web site uses them! Why should you bother installing codecs is virtually no web site uses them? Do you understand? I haven't seen any computer user installing Vorbis codecs.

As I mentioned, a "mixed solution" would be better

You know you're wrong. How can a web site like YouTube double its disk space just for less than 1% of its user base? This doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. They chose Flash and they were right. If they had to offer an alternative, it could be .ogg, but definately not a proprietary patented format like MPEG that you are not allowed to use on free OSes in countries like the USA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: still no easy drivers
by Doc Pain on Wed 1st Nov 2006 13:40 in reply to "RE[7]: still no easy drivers"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Are you stupid?"

No, I'm not.

"Yes, Flash is on every computer because every computer nowadays is connected to the Internet, and you can hardly use the Internet without Flash."

You are mixing up terms and are also seeing implications where they aren't.

First: "Flash" isn't on every computer: You know it isn't true. Claiming the opposite doesn't change facts. You know, there are computers outside the "Windows", Linux and Mac world.

Second: Every computer is connected to the Internet: That may be a tendency, but not a fact. Inform yourself, please.

Third: You can very well use the Internet without "Flash". Seems to me like you're mixing up the terms "Internet" and "WWW". You surely know the difference.

But I agree, sometimes it's hard to use the WWW when you can't get around "Flash" (or simply don't have it). In my opinion there should be a simple bypass.

" So the first thing you do when you set up a new computer is install Flash. Flash is available for Windows, OS X and Linux at least. So this accounts for 99% of computers. "

Okay, a percentage less than 100% ("every") is acceptable. I'm not sure 99% is a good guess, but I don't want to argue with you about the number.

But I cannot agree thatt installing "Flash" is the first thing. Here another idea: It would be great to have "Flash" plugins pre-installed in common browsers (e. g. Firefox, Mozilla, Opera), meaning when you install a browser, you have "Flash". That would be great, but sadly it isn't (at this time).

Your commenting on my "bypass 'Flash' by MPEG idea":

"Ok, but this doesn't solve your problem. A platform that doesn't support Flash isn't legally allowed to use the MPEG codec because of software patent. If you use MPEG on Linux/BSD, you are outlaw. Ever wondered why MPlayer codecs are hosted in Hungary? "

Honest answer? No, never wondered... That's really new for me. But thanks, I will do some study about this. I agree thatt using MPEG implies a certain amount of work (installing player + codecs), but it seems to be less work than doing the same for "Flash".

But I don't see your conjunction "does not support 'Flash'" leads to "is not allowed to use MPEG". I think we're talking about two different things here.

"This would account for the 1% of users who use MS-DOS, and Google and YouTube are right not to care."

Who uses MICROS~1 DOS? Modern PCs don't support this.

You're thinking into the wrong direction. So let me point it out: The "bypass" would be a possible solution for disabled people to see something instead of nothing. Just load a web page with "Flash" intro into Lynx and you'll see.

"They are companies made to make money, and they shouldn't bother, not to mention the overhead of having 2x more disk space used for just 1% of users. "

They could have converters "flash2mpeg" acting on demand. No need for persisting storage. Just an idea.

But I think I see your problem:

"Yes, but this is illegal in most countries. AFAIK, these codecs can only be legally used only on commercial OSes. "

"Most countries"... is this to say thatt all Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris and AROS (to name a few) users are doing illegal things? There are Linux boxes setup as a HDD video recorder with MPEG based enconding / playing. Illega?

You're stating an interesting point; I'll have to read more about this.

"Please, this is not MS's problem. Although Ogg Vorbis is excellent, MS doesn't give a f#ck. This is the user's problem. Of course you can install the codecs because they're free, but don't people install them? Because no web site uses them! Why should you bother installing codecs is virtually no web site uses them?"

Do you reduce the using of multimedia capable computers to the use of the WWW? I think that's not the fact, allthough the WWW (and other Internet services) have a high percentage of usage possibilities.

"Do you understand? I haven't seen any computer user installing Vorbis codecs. "

I have seen some.

You're coming back to the "bypass" idea:

"You know you're wrong. How can a web site like YouTube double its disk space just for less than 1% of its user base? This doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. They chose Flash and they were right. If they had to offer an alternative, it could be .ogg, but definately not a proprietary patented format like MPEG that you are not allowed to use on free OSes in countries like the USA."

As I mentioned before, double disk space wouldn't be needed. About illegality... I'm not sure so I won't make a statement here.

If MPEG is a proprietary patented format, there are alternatives for video playback. I don't have an example at hand, but I'm sure it exists. Everything needed is an open and standardized format that is legal to use on commercial an noncommercial OSes. And if YouTube etc. "switch", the users and the OS developers will switch as well, regarding the advantages of a free cross-plattform standard format.

Let me tell you this at the end: I'd like Macromedia to see them offering the "Flash" format and functions decription for everybody. Call it "making 'Flash' free software". So it can be ported natively (!) to every platform. That would be great. Furthermore, it could be integrated into browsers by default. And if this is not wanted by default, the browser could display an "excuse" in the web page saying "Flash content here" or something else instead of showing nothing. If "Flash" would be a well documented standard, I wouldn't have said anything.

Reply Parent Score: 1