LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Blogs > linux-related notes
User Name
Password

Notices

Just annotations of little "how to's", so I know I can find how to do something I've already done when I need to do it again, in case I don't remember anymore, which is not unlikely. Hopefully they can be useful to others, but I can't guarantee that it will work, or that it won't even make things worse.
Rate this Entry

Rant: what was wrong/"bad" with mplayer-gui/gmplayer?

Posted 09-03-2012 at 11:41 AM by the dsc
Tags mplayer, rant

I don't get it. It wasn't like it inspired someone to say that it's the GUI that one ever dreamed about, but was fully functional, and funnily enough more reliable than all the alternative GUIs that used mplayer as a back-end, as far as I've looked at. I guess the decision eventually resulted in a (current to me at least) problem with subtitles/fontconfig, as subtitles will work on mplayer and mplayer2, but not on gmplayer, even though it never used to be that way before.

It's not with mplayer that this sort of thing happens though, I find very frustrating things like the "instant filter" on konqueror being removed with the reasoning that it's a "plugin" and it needed to be built-in, but they've done that before the built-in version was implemented, leaving the software less functional. I'm not a programmer but I think that it's not a requirement to remove the availability of such plugin in order to develop/adapt (from dolphin or from the "plugin") the built-in version. Why cripple the software instead of making this end-user-invisible/technical improvement without crippling it? If it isn't broken, don't remove it.

That remembers me somewhat of the whole polemic against Gnome 3. I'm happy I never used Gnome*, by the way. I just hope openbox remains forever more or less like it is today.


[/rant]


* from a non-former-user perspective, it does not look that bad though. I still wonder if things like gnome 2 and kde 3 should really have been "dead ends", rather their successors being independent "forks", and their predecessors being eventually phased out gradually as people moved to them, if they did. [rant again] Perhaps that's why. Perhaps developers want to see their new creations being widely adopted, and there's no better way than discontinuing or crippling alternatives/predecessors, with which perhaps they don't have the same sort of personal attachment that they may have with the new things they've created from scratch. [/rant]
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 524 Comments 0
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0

Comments

 

  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement

My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration