Ed Greshko wrote: > Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: >> Ed Greshko wrote: >>> FWIW..... >>> >>> The file TrustedComputing_LAFKON_MID_theora.avi contains magic >>> that seems to imply >>> >>> TrustedComputing_LAFKON_MID_theora.avi: RIFF (little-endian) data, >>> AVI, 320 x 240,25.00 fps, video:, audio: MPEG-1 Layer 3 (stereo, >>> 24000 Hz) >> Yes, I thought I'd checked this, but I must have overlooked it - >> that file is not a valid Theora video file. >> >> The others are perfectly valid however, as is my initial assertion >> that Totem is set up as the default multimedia player for filetypes >> that it cannot handle, without downloading plugins that are not >> discussed in any detail. E.g. I had no idea until 5 minutes ago >> that the search I needed to do was for "gstreamer plugins" rather >> than "Totem plugins". > I think the point that is being missed is that the Fedora folks > can't legally distribute media players with plugins/codecs/etc that > infringe on patents and/or licensing/royalties. First of all, I think I owe you, and this list, an apology. My little tantrum was a little OTT and blown out of proportion. The most unforgivable thing I did though, was make several assertions without checking the facts, which are: Totem *can* play encumbered filetypes, but not in its default configuration - as distributed in Fedora. Totem uses gstreamer plugins. This I knew from a long time ago, but had completely forgotten about. The Fedora Project are morally, legally and ethically right to exclude encumbered software, and indeed pro-actively reject it. This I also knew, and have never disputed. > So, no matter what media player is installed by default that would > be distributed by fedora it will be crippled to the point of not > being able to play certain formats. So, one can't can't gripe about > the fedora folks. And the argument of "distro X" can do it, why > can't fedora is irrelevant when "distro X" is from a country outside > of the USA. I do not, and never have disputed that. In fact it is one of the reasons I chose Fedora over other distros (although you wouldn't think it by the way I'm harping on about encumbered filetypes). I use those files because they are omnipresent and impossible to avoid, not because I want to. > So, the well known solution is to pull your media player stuff from > places like rpm.livna.org. (They are based in France I believe) Yes, I'm well acquainted with Livna, in fact I used to package for them. You will see my name in the kmod-nvidia changelog if you look. > They have totem stuff that will play those formats that the fedora > distributed totem can't. Not quite correct. There are *gstreamer* plugins on Livna that enable Totem to play back encumbered filetypes. This is the source of confusion. Unlike MPlayer, where the codecs/plugins are *clearly* labelled "MPlayer", there is no immediately obvious connection between gstreamer and Totem. If I had bothered to RTFM I would have made the connection and solved the problem much quicker, but come on, in reality people don't RTFM of *every* single package they use *in detail* every time. So even though I've been through this problem before, and knew about the link between gstreamer and Totem before, months (years?) later I had forgotten and went through the same frustrations again. Even I, with all my experience of Red Hat, Fedora and Linux in general, got so completely stuck on this, that I posted a stupid rand to this list. I think that says something about the "broken" nature of this package. WRT my statement above about "pro-actively rejecting" encumbered filetypes, I feel the Fedora project has gone a step too far. Don't include them, by all means; don't encourage their use, certainly; extol the virtues of Free software, of course; but don't play this Cold War game of cat and mouse, by turning the whole "encumbered software" problem into a classified secret that must never be spoken about. For God's sake tell people precisely *why* the file has been rejected by the application and *what they can do to view it* if that is their choice. And like I said ... *do not pretend to handle filetypes that you do not support* by associating applications with unsupported filetypes. > So, in this case, even totem shouldn't be bad mouthed. I did vent my frustrations in the wrong direction, however something does still need to be fixed to make the solution more obvious. > That should be reserved for the Music/Motion Picture Industry, > MicroSoft, and the purveyors of proprietary licensed closed source > formats. Oh, and probably a few lawyers.... :-) Oooh such foul language :) > One may say that the release notes should point this out...but I > suspect that legally fedora folks can't tell you how you go about > breaking the law as that is "illegal". It's a sad day indeed, when Americans (of all people) lose their constitutional right to free speech. - K.
