Re: Video editing in Linux?

From: SjT (NOT_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/04/04 

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:25:17 GMT

Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> Kissed me, Licked me, then left me a note:

>I guess you'd need to attack an open port on my firewall first then huh?

Obviously, starting at Port 80 ;)

>> I have never dealt with main.o in my life, i am referring to the files
>> before compiling, you seem to be referring to the files which are
>> created after you compile?!
>
>The files you use before compiling are text and not executable. they can
>never 'call' anything. So yes, I refer to the files after compiling.

But you're being a tad pedantic here, as i was referring to making
calls in the original text, you know exactly what i meant.

>You dont call headers. header files are merely text, by convention used
>mainly to contain function prototypes. nothing stopping you from
>actually writing your program in header files even, although that would
>be really bad practice.

I said calls to the header files, i.e. to the functions contained
within, you're being really silly about this!

>> Are you perhaps referring to CPP (C++) maybe?!
>
>cpp would be the C preprocessor on many systems. and not I wasnt
>referring to it, although its behaviousr is very similar to what I
>described.

It's very odd that i've not come across main.o before then, i presumed
the .o was for object - therefore .o files would only be generated
when main.c was compiled with cpp syntax's.

>> No, if your ports are blocked it limits the number of connections that
>> are sucessfully made and thus slows the download rate.
>
>Cobblers.

It's a well known problem, well at least it is on windows p2p clients
it's like blocking up your fuel pipe and then seeing how fast you can
drive.

> > it was a long
>> time back when i was at uni and everyone championed the machines to us
>> poor Amiga users. But all they could play was Lemmings. ;)
>
>True, but the soundtrack on the Acorn version was WAY better quality.

This is like going back in time..

..And you're wrong :D

>> Exactly, MS have turned it around incredibly!
>
>No, they havent. hardware was already 'cheap' by the time win98 was
>around. its cheaper still now, admittedly.

That's because win95 was where the big leaps were made, that was when
everyone started to really get into computing as the OS kinda made
sense and encouraged people that they wanted to get online because
they had a free browser and email software sat on their machines.

The same with graphics cards, now you had an OS that would take
advantage of the hardware, in fact the jump from Win 3.1 was massive.

>M$ may be largely responsible for the drop in price of RAM but not much
>else really. Games drove CPU and graphics development and P2P and
>business uses drove the increase in cheap IDE harddisc sizes.

The new breed of games at that time were all made possible due to MS
developing DirectX. No matter what you say MS has made computing an
affordable hobby now, and also a hobby that you don't have to hang
your head in shame when you tell people how long you spend on them.

>Modems werent even CLOSE to 120ukp when winmodems hit the market. try
>30ukp, and even then a typical winmodem was 25ukp, so the difference
>wasnt THAT great. it was later on that mass production of winmodems
>dropped prices below 20ukp, and even then real modems werent more than
>40ukp.

That's not correct as i had an amiga at the time and remember that the
pace modems were around the £120 mark, yet i remember thinking that if
i nicked the old novell 486 server from work i could bung a winmodem
in for £25 and be away, complete with OE and IE on win95.

>> To think how things have progressed is hugely thanks to microsoft.
>
>balls.

hehe you linux die-hard you! ;)

Gaming pushes hardware the most imo, and windows provided a gaming
platform which you could customise, and that involved buying new
hardware.

The only competitor were games consoles which would not have sold
components and the Amiga, which was pretty much an all-in-one
solution, sure you could buy gfx cards etc but they were all specific
to the amiga which wasn't a hugely popular market.

However, theres all these MSWin/MSDos machines sitting in workplaces
up and down the country and they wanted to be playing doom, imagine
how many gfx cards and sound cards were sold for that one game?! and
it ran on the MS OS.

Of course with the popularity recently has come all the *** side of
computing, where everyones out to rip home users off, and it's become
a financial gain to put spyware on your machine or to flood you with
spam as so many people own home computers now.

Nothing annoys me more than searching for an old driver and some site
is expecting you to register and pay a fiver to download when you
can't guarantee if its the one thats going to work anyway.

>> No it was the standardisation and support that MS offered which
>> allowed manufacturers to utilise all these new cheaper internal soft-
>> devices.
>
>Rubbish. all the early winmodems used their own weirdo interfaces.

Only for a brief time, after a while there was only about 2-3
different chipsets being used.

>> Trouble was they were pretty *** on performance.
>
>I never found that. My winmodem always performed just as well as my
>hardware ones before it - mind you this was on linux so...

Depends what you class as good performance.

Latency is an issue that will always plague winmodems due to the
software processing IME, of course Linux may deal with this alot
better and explains why only a small percentage of winmodems were
supported back in the day.

> > But it enabled alot
>> of people to get into computing, most notably to get online and make
>> the net great.
>
>The net was great long before the winmodem arrived. In fact the net was
>BETTER before it filled with *** anyway...

Totally agree, it's packed full of *** now, but it's still great..

Blame MS :D

>People often do stupid things. mind you, today, even the cheapest mobo
>perfoms well. my NFS server hasnt EVER been offline, and gets over
>100MB/sec disc performance. the board cost 15ukp.

Yeah i quite agree but people do not take into account how the mobo
performs, i.e. my last mobo was an asus a7n8x deluxe - £20 from
Stak.com on offer, yet when i first had my eye on it 6 months back it
was £100. For me it beats the *** out of any VIA mobo i've used.

Most notably the IDE drivers way exceed that of VIA's.
>> Does linux take full advantage of your graphics card?
>
>No, but I can play at 1600x1200 at over 90fps so I really dont care.

I'm limited to 1280x1024 on everything at home since i got a nice Benq
TFT cheap, as it is it's native res i don't really like to switch to
anything other.. I'm guessing this won't cause a problem with linux?

> > ive got a really
>> old GF2 MX400 in my machine, chances of that being supported should be
>> quite good i imagine?
>
>Its supported by Nvidias linux driver, however be warned that the 'free
>download' linux distros dont include binary drivers on the whole since
>they would require licensing royalties from the respective companies. th
>e commercial versions usually have them.

So i would need to compile them?

Also i was looking into rosegarden last night and i remember the whole
nightmare that i had with linux before, it was with trying to get this
software running i'm sure of it!

1. The first brickwall i hit is:

-Quote- We don't know of any source of up-to-date SuSE packages of
Rosegarden. SuSE have included Rosegarden in their last two
distributions, but neither of the packages worked very well.

We recommend building from source on SuSE -End Quote-

That would be a pretty simple task i'm presuming?

2. I need all of this (LIKE WTF IS THIS?!):

In order to build Rosegarden-4, you will need
a Unix-like operating system (most obviously Linux) - GOT
the gcc 3.x C++ compiler - PRESUME I WILL HAVE THAT?!
KDE 3.x with Qt3 - I KNOW OF GOT THAT BUT Qt3...?
Build with ALSA 0.9 or better for sound - EEK?!
JACK (Jack Audio Connection Kit) for audio - DOUBLE EEK!?
and LADSPA - *CRIES*

I'm not digging into linux here, but whats up with the windows method
of install one driver and thats it?
Are you aware of any one package i can get which will give me all the
above or do i just bite the bullet have to read up on it all and do it
seperately?

i beleive SuSE will give me the top 3.

3. A quick visit to the ALSA Soundcard Matrix shows me that my card is
supported (woopee!): http://tinyurl.com/5y7b2

It's a bit off putting to say the least, and another thing is that on
that page it says "There are two ways of getting Linux drivers to
work, you can either compile them into the kernel or build them
separately as modules. Read the Kernel-HOWTO for details of how to
compile a kernel.".

Which totally goes against what people have told me on here when i
said i had to compile into the kernel last time i used linux (And
infact had me labelled as troll).

Any help or advice would be hugely appreciated (And available thru
google groups when i get SuSE up and running:).

>> To be able to load up a video project or audio project and everything
>> is how you left it is amazing when you consider i used to be hooking
>> videos up to one another and cutting and sticking tape, or spending
>> hours getting my sound levels right.
>
>Welcome to the digital revolution...

The directors 'affordable' cut :D

>> A script? i thought you meant rename nuke.exe to norton_setup.exe or
>> whatever and then send it?
>
>script, executable. the difference is largely irrelevant.

I would disagree, firstly you can easily access a script and secondly
the file size is a major giveaway when swapping filenames to fool the
user.

>> If you could gain access to the admin password could you log in as
>> admin via software?! or does it always require user authorisation,
>> i.e. no auto/remote loggins allowed?
>
>I dont understand your question.

What i mean is that if a piece of sofware requested admin rights, is
there anyway that the sofware (if it was aware of the password) could
log you in? or is user intervention always required?

>when I modify some code and want to send my changes back to the
>maintainer, I run diff on the new and old code, which picks out the
>differences. the maintainer can read the diff file (its plaintext)
> and apply it
>if desired using the patch tool.

That's a good idea actually, but surely it would be more secure if the
maintainer was to run the diff file? I can't see the benefit from you
running it and sending it.. especially if you was intending for your
malicious code to be ran.

>> Must admit it sounds pretty good and i've built up a brief
>> understanding of it from you, all the root and user business reminds
>> me of when we used to telnet to each others machines at home to get
>> news feeds and emails to each other.
>
>Considering the systems you were logging in to were almost certainly
>unix based...

Yeah i know they were as i used to use elm for my may and a few others
which have completey escaped me now.

I remember one was an IRC app and you literally had to keep the IRC
client connected to the server by replying to the HELO commands
manually, it was quite funny really, especially through telnet as the
delay was awful at times and the last thing you want in a conversation
was to have to relay back to the server to keep you online.

That was a very long time ago though, but was great for getting on irc
as several identities on different machines :D

>> Well yeah, but i did deliberatly check if it was linux compatible, and
>> it turned out to be lies, so i did try guv'nor! :D
>
>fair enough but I think you have to agree its not linux fault that your
>vendor lied, nor was it linux fault that you didnt return the product
>(as was your right).

No, but shouldn't there be some approval system in place now?! whereby
anyone showing the funky penguin should have adequate drivers?

>oh, and wine is a complete (ish) reimplementation of the windows APIs
>under linux...

I've been thinking about WINE, if i installed that could i read from
my NTFS partitions into the linux partitions and vice versa? 

-- 
Playing: FIFA 2005.... Thats it atm
Awaiting: PES4 & HALO2 (Yawn yes i know)
Quantcast