On Friday 07 October 2005 23:15, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

On October Saturday 08 2005 1:02 am, Dana J. Laude wrote:

...

On Friday 07 October 2005 21:51, Dana J. Laude wrote:

...

Just a FYI here, but I just upgraded my system to 10.0 GR from 9.3 and all seems excellent! (much smoother than the 9.1 to 9.3 update)

MP3 files work, my dual-head setup just worked, and the thing just is faster. Way cool! ;)

I take back the MP3 support. WMA's fine. Ugh!! What IS exactly the big deal of supporting .mp3 files anyway? Damn, I've been using SUSE since like version 5.1, so I can't figure out the hoops and jumps involving .mp3 support, except for Novell being scared of the RIAA. (hey, RIAA... you suck btw!!) Disappointed.

Dana

MP3 is a patented process. and teh Patent holder lives in Germany.. where our beloved distro is born and raised. Something about teh risks of having that on the product media , vs what a user may choose to download from an internet location means that Suse et al prefer not to jump thru that or other software hoops.

Now, How do you get all those lovely soundfiles to play on your box.. assuming your sound card was correctly detected and configured.. you do and Online Update from yast.. down near the bottom of the list are 4 count em 4 items having to do w/ audio files. you check off each one of the four, and your computer downloads and installs them to the correct locations.

When your online update is finished you may choose your favorite media player ( I like xmms, but there certainly are others ) call up a favorite mp3 file and you should have sound...

There is nothing to figure out. Do an online update and choose everything that mentions multimedia and YAST does the rest.

Actually, that worked under 9.3, but I have no option under 10.0 right now. Anyone have a install source that has the .mp3 support? Dana

On 08/10/05, Kevin Donnelly wrote:

Instead of complaining about Novell, complain to your congressman or other elected representative, if they're not already in the pockets of some large corporation or other. (Indeed, if more US citizens had done this before the DMCA became law, its pernicious influence would not have spread any farther.) If Novell gets sued as a "test case", and that brings down the rest of the distro, it is hardly a price worth paying. Use oggs instead (and again, if more consumers refused to buy iPod or "Plays for Sure" crap, the manufacturers would start ensuring that the ogg format was better supported - see http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide). If mp3s are actually vital to your existence, use Microsoft Windows, which has cartel agreements with other corporations.

--

Pob hwyl / Best wishes

Kevin Donnelly

Wholeheartedly agreed :-) It follows the smae line as I have been spouting (sorry to go on but somebody has to) about hardware and manufacturers not writing drivers for Linux. It is not difficult to do. I have a friend who I encouraged to try SuSE 9.3. His didgital camera did not work under Linux. So, this guy, sat down and wrote a set of drivers for it. It took him about half an hour for goodness sake. So I will repeat myself here.. IF THE HARDWARE YOU ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LINUX DON'T BUY IT AND LET THE MANUFACTURER KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION! My apologies for doing that in capitals. Anyway, I'm not alone in my thoughts as Klaus Knopper (Knoppix) is now saying pretty much the same. End of the day it is going to make life a lot easier for all of us if development time can be switched from writing drivers for hardware that manufacturers should be writing to speeding up applications like Open Office org. :-) -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

Sid Boyce wrote: Any bets

on their decision to support PDF in the next version of Office just to tow the line that the state of Massachusetts dictated is likely to produce PDF's that can't be read properly on other than Windows Vista?

My understanding of the PDF licence is that if you use the term "PDF" it has to be compliant. If your product produces files that won't work with others, it can't use the term PDF.

Sid Boyce wrote:

James Knott wrote:

...

Sid Boyce wrote: Any bets

...

on their decision to support PDF in the next version of Office just to tow the line that the state of Massachusetts dictated is likely to produce PDF's that can't be read properly on other than Windows Vista?

My understanding of the PDF licence is that if you use the term "PDF" it has to be compliant. If your product produces files that won't work with others, it can't use the term PDF.

Yes but .... You and I are not Microsoft, neither do we possess their magical powers for "innovation", so they can give you an output that's not as nice to look at or read as under Vista. May be I'm an old cynic. Regards Sid.

ISTR that they did the same thing with their version of Java. Eventually, Sun won.

Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:45 -0400, James Knott wrote:

...

Sid Boyce wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

Sid Boyce wrote: Any bets

...

on their decision to support PDF in the next version of Office just to tow the line that the state of Massachusetts dictated is likely to produce PDF's that can't be read properly on other than Windows Vista?

My understanding of the PDF licence is that if you use the term "PDF" it has to be compliant. If your product produces files that won't work with others, it can't use the term PDF.

Yes but .... You and I are not Microsoft, neither do we possess their magical powers for "innovation", so they can give you an output that's not as nice to look at or read as under Vista. May be I'm an old cynic. Regards Sid.

ISTR that they did the same thing with their version of Java. Eventually, Sun won.

But would PFD work as such a storage format? It implies that you can edit it. After all, current Word can make non-editable (by Word, at least) PDF (via whatever mechanisims). If it is to be editable, would the PDF doc really contain all the needed formatting markers for reliable and complete editing? I would imagine that any openDoc file could move from one editor to another and be reasonably edited. Mainly because the openDoc spec was written with this in mind. But PDF can come from anywhere. And all PDF sources do not have editing in mind. So, I suspect that MS just do not want to give in to OSS (even though their new cluster stuff uses OSS MPI - a first use of OSS by MS) and are thinking that PDF will let them meet the letter of the law and, as it has limits for this use, make the adopters of those requirement re-think the utility of the requirement. Of course, given that those who decided to adopt this strategy seem to have a clue, perhaps they will not be ao easily disuaded.

--

Roger

OOo imports and exports PDF, so they would be able to import the PDF, edit it and export as their own format or PDF, similarly a new document could be created and exported as PDF, etc. Clue-ful or clueless, that doesn't stop MS trying it on and engaging in a protracted argument trying to persuade enough users to exert pressure on their behalf ... our PDF is compliant, just lets you do more - remember the tricks they tried to play with kerberos until they were stamped on. MS has always used OSS, their IP stack straight out of BSD and for ages hotmail ran on BSD. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

Sid Boyce wrote:

OOo imports and exports PDF

As far as I know OOo exports, but does not import PDF. IIRC, KWord will import PDF.

On Saturday 08 October 2005 12:11, Roger Oberholtzer wrote: <snip> This whole thread has gotten out of topic. Originally I bitched about .MP3 support in the 10.0 GR release, and now we are discussing everything from PDF support to OGG. (and then some!) I've upgraded my system from 9.3 to 10.0, and I have MP3 files that I want to convert to OGG. Since MP3 files are not supported in 10.0, how should I convert them? (minus booting into windows) And btw, whomever suggested I had a "hardware" problem should learn to read... never a problem here. Just a simple question, requiring a "simple" answer. Ugh!! Dana

On Sunday 09 October 2005 00:45, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Dana,

On Saturday 08 October 2005 23:32, Dana J. Laude wrote:

...

On Saturday 08 October 2005 12:11, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

<snip>

...

I've upgraded my system from 9.3 to 10.0, and I have MP3 files that I want to convert to OGG. Since MP3 files are not supported in 10.0, how should I convert them? (minus booting into windows)

First of all, MP3 software most certainly is available through the usual channels (including YaST-installable repositories).

Secondly, you should reconsider your plan to convert your MP3 files to Ogg-Vorbis. Recoding from one lossy format to another magnifies encoding artifacts considerably. You really should recapture the originals and compress them directly to Ogg (Vorbis, actually--Ogg is a file format, Vorbis is the audio encoding scheme).

I already started playing around with the conversion process, both from MP3 to OGG and from the original CD's to OGG, just to hear the difference. Also found a few perl scripts for automating the process after I do a little more experimentation. Thank you! Dana - KC9AAE

On Sunday 09 October 2005 03:34, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 00:32 -0600, Dana J. Laude wrote:

...

On Saturday 08 October 2005 12:11, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

<snip>

This whole thread has gotten out of topic. Originally I bitched about .MP3 support in the 10.0 GR release, and now we are discussing everything from PDF support to OGG. (and then some!)

I've upgraded my system from 9.3 to 10.0, and I have MP3 files that I want to convert to OGG. Since MP3 files are not supported in 10.0, how should I convert them? (minus booting into windows)

And btw, whomever suggested I had a "hardware" problem should learn to read... never a problem here.

Just a simple question, requiring a "simple" answer. Ugh!!

This was pointed out on another list:

http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/178/42/

Thanks much Roger! Already viewing the page. Dana - KC9AAE

On Sunday 09 October 2005 06:13, James Knott wrote:

Dana J. Laude wrote:

...

On Saturday 08 October 2005 12:11, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

<snip>

This whole thread has gotten out of topic. Originally I bitched about .MP3 support in the 10.0 GR release, and now we are discussing everything from PDF support to OGG. (and then some!)

I've upgraded my system from 9.3 to 10.0, and I have MP3 files that I want to convert to OGG. Since MP3 files are not supported in 10.0, how should I convert them? (minus booting into windows)

I just tried and I can play MP3 files here on SUSE 10. When I click on the icon, RealPlayer opens and plays the music.

Thanks James. I can play via RealPlayer also, but I really don't care to use it. I prefer XMMS. I'll eventually convert everything over to Vorbis (OGG) format and be done with it. Dana - KC9AAE

On Sunday 09 October 2005 21:08, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Dana,

On Sunday 09 October 2005 19:01, Dana J. Laude wrote:

...

...

Thanks James. I can play via RealPlayer also, but I really don't care to use it. I prefer XMMS. I'll eventually convert everything over to Vorbis (OGG) format and be done with it.

I recently lost the disk on which I had my CD collection in Ogg-Vorbis (a few months ago I left my Rio Karma on the bus!). My plan now is to rip the discs to FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) and keep them on a hard drive. Then I'll make player-specific (Ogg-Vorbis, MP3 etc. as the case may be) when I need to load them onto a player. That way I'm not committed to a particular quality level or encoding format. I don't want to rip repeatedly because I'm very picky about tags, and I end up spending a lot of time cleaning up all the very messy, inconsistent and / or incomplete disc information in the on-line repositories such as MusicBrainz and FreeDB.

Fortunately, my CD collection is not all that big, so it's not hard to get a sufficiently large hard drive for this strategy to be feasible.

Thanks for the link Randall, looks like a interesting site. (bookmarked already) I wish all of these MP3 "issues" could be fixed, but I understand Novell's stand. (better safe than sorry) Dana - KC9AAE

On Saturday 08 October 2005 11:05, Kevanf1 wrote:

IF THE HARDWARE YOU ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LINUX DON'T BUY IT AND LET THE MANUFACTURER KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION!

I sometimes think it would be nice to have a blacklist site for hardware manufacturers. You would set up a group of Linux users, and send a standard letter/email to whatever hardware manufacturers you could think of, basically asking: - does your product a, b, c currently run on Linux? - if so: (a) is there a Linux page on your website giving information on how to do this? (b) do you advertise Linux support on your website, packaging and adverts? - if not: (a) do you plan to support Linux in the future? (b) if so, within what likely timescale? The responses would be archived on the site, and the various manufacturers graded in terms of how many of their products are built with Linux in mind, and how well they communicate that fact in terms of packaging (this is important in terms of raising Linux' profile). The aim would be to persuade Linux users to strike manufacturers with a poor rating completely off their "consider" list for *any* consumer/IT product - the number of Linux users is now such that this might actually have some effect - and buy stuff made by "platinum" or "gold" Linux supporters only. Note that this is a different emphasis from existing sites like Linux Hardware. The aim there is to check whether something works before you, the consumer, buy it, with the onus being on you. The aim of the blacklist site would be to take that a step farther back, so that manufacturers have to start thinking about doing the checking themselves (ie factoring in Linux support on the drawing board). This also says nothing about whether or not the manufacturers provide specs (although ratings could be improved if this were the case). Being "Linux-friendly" goes further than this - if they write drivers for Windows, they should do the same for Linux, and this might in turn bring pressure to bear for general adherence to standards. (There is a whole other question about whether free/open drivers should be available as a matter of principle, but I take the pragmatic view that if a manufacturer feels unable to assist their development, then that puts an even greater onus on them to provide Linux drivers themselves. Free/open drivers are then a step beyond that.) An organised campaign like this might be more effective in publicity terms than individual letters to manufacturers, especially when those manufacturers are being compared on a grid. -- Pob hwyl / Best wishes Kevin Donnelly www.kyfieithu.co.uk - Meddalwedd Rhydd yn Gymraeg www.cymrux.org.uk - Linux Cymraeg ar un CD

On 10/8/05, Kevin Donnelly wrote:

On Saturday 08 October 2005 11:05, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

IF THE HARDWARE YOU ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LINUX DON'T BUY IT AND LET THE MANUFACTURER KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION!

I sometimes think it would be nice to have a blacklist site for hardware manufacturers. You would set up a group of Linux users, and send a standard letter/email to whatever hardware manufacturers you could think of

This is what the BSD people do for years with great success as the latest example (Adaptec) has shown.

basically asking: - does your product a, b, c currently run on Linux? - if so: (a) is there a Linux page on your website giving information on how to do this? (b) do you advertise Linux support on your website, packaging and adverts? - if not: (a) do you plan to support Linux in the future? (b) if so, within what likely timescale?

The responses would be archived on the site, and the various manufacturers graded in terms of how many of their products are built with Linux in mind, and how well they communicate that fact in terms of packaging (this is important in terms of raising Linux' profile).

Agree. Would also like to contribute to the effort.

The aim would be to persuade Linux users to strike manufacturers with a poor rating completely off their "consider" list for *any* consumer/IT product - the number of Linux users is now such that this might actually have some effect - and buy stuff made by "platinum" or "gold" Linux supporters only.

It's always easy to criticize hardware vendors and to demand support for product X, Y or Z and operating system A, B and C. I fully understand the users' POV but I also know the other side. It takes a large amount of resources to support more and more operating systems (open source and commercial). Every time a new OS is to be added to the portfolio, a vendor could hire new staff with the proper knowledge or train the current staff. In either way, it costs a lot of money and the consumer market is very unpredictable.

Note that this is a different emphasis from existing sites like Linux Hardware. The aim there is to check whether something works before you, the consumer, buy it, with the onus being on you. The aim of the blacklist site would be to take that a step farther back, so that manufacturers have to start thinking about doing the checking themselves (ie factoring in Linux support on the drawing board).

Would have no effect. A passive effort does not change anything.

This also says nothing about whether or not the manufacturers provide specs (although ratings could be improved if this were the case). Being "Linux-friendly" goes further than this - if they write drivers for Windows, they should do the same for Linux, and this might in turn bring pressure to bear for general adherence to standards. (There is a whole other question about whether free/open drivers should be available as a matter of principle, but I take the pragmatic view that if a manufacturer feels unable to assist their development, then that puts an even greater onus on them to provide Linux drivers themselves. Free/open drivers are then a step beyond that.)

Now, social aspects are mixed with economical aspects. A conflict we are currently facing within the governing organizations of the Internet (ISOC, IETF, etc.) and leading open source initiatives.

An organised campaign like this might be more effective in publicity terms than individual letters to manufacturers, especially when those manufacturers are being compared on a grid.

Don't think so. As stated above, the BSD communities has made major progress over the yeas by submitting individual inquiries about drivers for certain products on a regular basis. The results could then be made public to encourage other users to follow. Supporting non-commercial OSes is a challenge for every vendor (hardware and software) since, revenue is not predictable and support from the communities must be managed carefully. My employer has the same problem. \Steve