Video editing in Linux?

DVD-Software.info
Your one stop source for DVD Software

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Video editing in Linux? Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15 Next

DVD-Software.info Forum Index -> General Video Discussion

Author

Message

Ian Molton
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

tetraplan wrote:

Quote:

Both use apt-get which I'm told is a great way to get your packages
and keeping your stuff up to date.

Let us know how you get on.

tetraplan
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:07:17 +0000, Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> wrote
in rec.video.desktop:

Quote:

tetraplan wrote:

Both use apt-get which I'm told is a great way to get your packages
and keeping your stuff up to date.

Let us know how you get on.

I will.
I'll see if I can get Planet CCRMA installed this weekend.

--

dwaes /at hetnet /dot nl

Going too far
WE don't go too far!
None of us will go too far...
Maybe sometimes we WENT too far
But now WE WON'T!
Because we're real nice guys!

tetraplan
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:01 am Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:07:17 +0000, Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> wrote
in rec.video.desktop:

Quote:

tetraplan wrote:

Both use apt-get which I'm told is a great way to get your packages
and keeping your stuff up to date.

Let us know how you get on.

Before I forget, where is everybody posting from?
There are 3.000.000 groups (1) in this crosspost, I would like to trim
the headers a bit.

(1) or slightly less.

--

dwaes /at hetnet /dot nl

Going too far
WE don't go too far!
None of us will go too far...
Maybe sometimes we WENT too far
But now WE WON'T!
Because we're real nice guys!

Ian Molton
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

tetraplan wrote:

Quote:

Before I forget, where is everybody posting from?
There are 3.000.000 groups (1) in this crosspost, I would like to trim
the headers a bit.

(1) or slightly less.

uk.rec.video.digital here.

SjT
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

Andy Fraser <andyfraser31@hotmail.com> Kissed me, Licked me, then left
me a note:

Quote:

WHA?!! I asked a few months back what the best distro was for a
migrating XP user, near everyone recommended me SuSE so i went out and
bought it.. The friggin pro version too!

I would rather use SuSE for that fact really, i am not making things
hard for myself whatsoever, when i checked the distros SuSE appeared
to contain the most i would want to use including this software..
Which i know find out doesn't run correctly with it.

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

SjT
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

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

Quote:

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.

I know what you think you meant, but my point was that your use of the
terminology was clumsy, indicating you are likely not an expert in that
field.

I will admit i'm not an expect when it comes to the compiling side of
things, probably due to coming from basic programming languages, i
picked the visual.net package because the compiling was virtually all
taken care off, i did use the dev IDE (I cant remember the exact name)
which was based on a linux compiler i beleive?! and i had a few
problems getting the opengl libraries to compile correctly so walked
away defeated! :D

Quote:

to avoid confusion pleas call C++, er, C++. (not cpp)

Sorry, most places i look for help are labelled cpp to avoid the +'s
being used as boolean strings when searching, so i just refere to it
as that myself.

Quote:

Just today I had over 600 connections on a single port here (toying with
gtk-gnutella).

But i expect that was using a port in the 7001-7009 range?

Quote:

Sorry, i didn't realise you was talking sound 'quality' i thought you
meant the music was of better quality.. i.e. better artisticly. I
never really heard the archimedes sound as the ones downstairs weren't
allowed the speakers on.

Quote:

Rubbish. computing was massive already when doom came out and that
predated win95.

It was massive at the time yeah, but in comparison it's nothing by
todays standards.

Quote:

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.

cobblers.

I don't mean the technology i mean the useability, plug and play was
the big buzz word and it invited people to a ride of pure hell! :D

Quote:

The new breed of games at that time were all made possible due to MS
developing DirectX.

Rubbish. Doom and Quake (initially) used some extremely well coded FULLY
SOFTWARE rendering. Quake later used OpenGL and THEN DirectX.

Yeah, but the majority of windows based games were using the Directx
drivers.

Quote:

Well if you must insist on buying PACEs overpriced junk...

Pfft.. PACE hater :PPPP

Quote:

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

Gaming pushes 3D video most. as evidence look at the XBOX - a 733MHz
Celeron and plays all the latest games fine...

No windows overhead though, in fact only the required components are
loaded in, add to that a pretty good GFX Card that only has to render
around the 800x600 mark and it flies along.

With windows you are forced into upgrading CPU, Memory AND Video card
every year if you're really into your games.

Quote:

but you may be interested to know that most (probably all) DSL modems,
and in fact the equipment that handles 'traditional' modems at the ISP
end, use DSPs that execute software to process the line signal from/to
analogue/digital. so much for the 'all hardware' solution eh?

I had a shock when connecting to my wireless provider through PPPoE, i
was getting shit performance running straight in through my network
card into XP, i bought a router and it was clearly so much better..
The ISP hasn't a clue why and i wondered then whether there was some
processing that XP was screwing up on.

Never found out the answer, but it works.. Which is generally how i
work, trial and error, you are probably more the sort who would sit
down and investigate why it didnt work and then sort it.

Quote:

You know I do ;-) (actually the vast quantity of morons and "businesses"
on the net I blame more, but...)

But can you blame them for using such a standard platform?! I would be
shit scared to switch over to openoffice and a linux server here, i
would love to do it to see how it compares, but things like
compatibility issues with other companies would scare me to death.

How do you stand using open office in a company, is there a fund which
you can pay into if you feel the need?

Quote:

We recommend building from source on SuSE -End Quote-

As mentioned elsewhere then, perhaps you should try a different distro.
I appreciate that this of course isnt a solution available to everyone,
so...

Yeah, the thing is i paid for SuSE and so want to use it.. I know
thats a silly thing to be saying, but it would feel a waste otherwise
and i can't see why i should have problems with that over any other
distro as it's all linux isnt it?

What i mean is that you recommend trying another Distro, but for what
i gain with one i lose with the other, surely?

To start with i only really want to play around to get a feel of
whether i like it and could do what i want, then at a later date i
would be looking at distro's with much more knowledge and make the
leap of faith if i like.

Quote:

In order to build Rosegarden-4, you will need
a Unix-like operating system (most obviously Linux) - GOT

Duh... you need an OS :-)

I did put - GOT on the end there! :D

Quote:

Build with ALSA 0.9 or better for sound - EEK?!

Perhaps you should have googled a little.
ALSA == Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. Its the replacement for OSS
(Open Sound System) that linux used to use for audio.

So is that a program or a driver or some kind of wrapper?

Quote:

and LADSPA - *CRIES*

Same again, realtime DSP stuff. google would have told you this. I would
guess it will build using one or the other or both of JACK or LADSPA, bu
t that is a guess. I havent ever built it.

Yeah i did google it, but i'm totally lost. You must appreciate that
this is an absolute world of difference from windows. I don't know
how far up the beginner->advanced ladder this shit is? Maybe i'm
jumping in too high?! I just want to try out audio apps though..

Quote:

I'm not digging into linux here, but whats up with the windows method
of install one driver and thats it?

Rosegarden isnt a driver. and windows software depends on DLLs etc.
(LADSPA and JACK are 'sort of' like DLLs.)

Yeah thats what i mean, in windows i would install the ASIO driver for
my soundcard (Which is the equivalent of LADSPA and JACK) and then
Cubase (Rosegarden).

But this appears more complicated.. it may not be in reality, just
thought i'd check her first to make sure i wasn't running into a big
pit full of sharp knives.

Quote:

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

emu10k1 - sBlive! ?

Nah i use the EMU10K2 - which is audigy2, but they list it as emu10k1
despite referring to it as the emu10k1, im guessing its just a
mistake.

Quote:

not the worlds greatest card but adequate. I used to use one before I
got my external DAC (on optical SP/DIF or TOSlink if you like). I used
it for my radio astronomy stuff and its actually got a decent input
bandwidth - 19.5kHz FM stereo carriers from local radio were easily
visible in the output of my radio scanner on the line in.

I only use mine for recording music, it's got great ASIO drivers and
great 3rd party support (www.kxproject.com), the sound quality is
pretty good too, i don't use any of optical/digital features, it's
purely line-in, line-out, but the beauty is that i can use VST
Plugings to generate synths and DSP's etc and because i can master it
all within the computer the soundcard never really affects the final
output as it is all rendered internally.

Of course my line-in is subject to not being the greatest, but i'm on
a budget and more interested in the creativity than the actual sound
quality... Which exceeds my speakers and amp probably now.

Quote:

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).

You seem to read selectively. the paragraph you quoted says "or build
them seperately as modules" which is what several people have told you
here already.

They seem to suggest that compiling into the kernel is the better
option though as there are far more links to that?

Quote:

yes this is a potential weak spot, but the programs in use in these
areas are all very small and extremely closely scrutinised. no known
holes have been discovered for a good while now.

Would it be possible for you to code a piece of software which could
perform this?

Also, does the software discussed above require to know the root
password? or is it like a one-way ticket straight through, no
authentication needed?

Quote:

That's a good idea actually, but surely it would be more secure if the
maintainer was to run the diff file?

Why does it amke a difference who runs diff? as long as the maintainer
actually reads the output of the diff program there is no problem.

Well you could change the code to fix the problems, run a diff on it,
save the resulting file.

Then, modify the code to add your malicious code and send that file
with the original diff file you made previous?

Quote:

Its simpler than that. the linux kernel source code
(http://www.kernel.org/) contains ALL the officially approved drivers,
full stop.

Bookmarked! :D

Quote:

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

wine is about executing windows programs in a windows-a-like ABI (not
API, althoguh it has that too). it has nothing to do with what
filesystem you use - you could use EXT2, 3, reiserFS, XFS, NFS, NTFS. no
matter.

Ok, so it's what i would probably call a windows wrapper? Crude i know
:)

I.e. you run windows executables rather than having a window
displaying a windows machine, i.e. a windows desktop?

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

SjT
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

tetraplan <dwaes@spamdeath.hell> Kissed me, Licked me, then left me a
note:

Quote:

Before I forget, where is everybody posting from?
There are 3.000.000 groups (1) in this crosspost, I would like to trim
the headers a bit.

(1) or slightly less.

uk.rec.digital.video

And great post, really interesting for me.

One thing though, i've got SuSE 9.0 Pro would you advise me to upgrade
to 9.1? or just bite the bullet and go with Planet CCRMA?

This feels like a huge mountain i'm about to climb :(

I remember last time when i first installed SuSE i was told to get 9.1
pre-release/beta whatever (As it wasnt out) and caused myself
problems, i cannot for the life of me think why.. But there must have
been a reason.

Any ideas on what 9.1 has over 9.0 specifically for AV?

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

SjT
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

tetraplan <dwaes@spamdeath.hell> Kissed me, Licked me, then left me a
note:

Quote:

JACK is a virtual audio cable.
Very interesting. Allows you to pipe audio from one application into
another.
Nothing really like this on windows, although I think ReWire can be
seen as its idiot cousin. (1)

Sounds good if all the apps support it, i thought it was a signal
router rather much like i'm using at the moment with kxproject:

Screenshot- http://kxproject.lugosoft.com/images/shots/kxdsp.gif

But it appears to be better than that, in that you can run soft synths
independately and link them to any sequencer that supports it.. i
think?! :D

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

Adam D. Barratt
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

In uk.comp.os.linux, in <418b4d4c.235514687@130.133.1.4>, SjT <NOT@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> Kissed me, Licked me, then left me a note:
[...]
That's a good idea actually, but surely it would be more secure if the
maintainer was to run the diff file?

Why does it amke a difference who runs diff? as long as the maintainer
actually reads the output of the diff program there is no problem.

Well you could change the code to fix the problems, run a diff on it,
save the resulting file.

Then, modify the code to add your malicious code and send that file
with the original diff file you made previous?

You're missing a key point. You *don't* send the code, you *only* send
the patch/diff. The maintainer checks the patch and, if they're happy
with it, applies it.

You could send them a complete patched file, but anyone even vaguely
competent is going to ignore it entirely and simply use the patch.
That's what it's there for.

Adam
--
A "goto" in Perl falls into the category of hard things that should be
possible, not easy things that should be easy.
-- Larry Wall in <199709041935.MAA27136@wall.org>

Nix
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

[Followups redirected, as this is quite off-topic in video-editing
newsgroups now; dud newsgroups excised]
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004, Ian Molton yowled:

Quote:

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

I know what you think you meant, but my point was that your use of the
terminology was clumsy, indicating you are likely not an expert in
that field.

Quite so. Making newbie errors is fine: making newbie errors after
proclaiming one's expertise in the field is perhaps not.

Quote:

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

Header files dont (normally) contain any functions at all.

Actually, C++ headers can contain a very large number of inline
functions: so many that G++ has now gained the ability to precompile
them (although the constraints on this are such that it's probably not
very useful for most projects. Useful on Darwin though.)

Quote:

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.

.o stands for object. not object oriented. the code produced when you
compile a C source file is object code (or ratehr is stored in object
files). the result of linking the objects is (well, can be) an
executable.

to avoid confusion pleas call C++, er, C++. (not cpp)

The extension for C++ stuff is normally .C or .cc, as well; .cpp tends to
be used more in stuff that was ported from the DOS/Windows world.

Quote:

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.

perhaps a problem on windows, I wouldnt know, although I doubt it
since windows stole its TCP/IP stack from BSD...

I think this is because P2P stuff tends to open a myriad of distinct
ports and spray data through them all, specifically so that it can
compensate for firewalls blocking some but not all of those ports. This
trick is pretty much unique to (a limited subset of) P2P software.

However, as a general rule blocking ports *prevents* connections to
them, and as virtually everything else listens on fixed ports, blocking
those ports will generally block access to the service.

(The canonical irritations in this area are RPC-based services like NFS,
which listen on dynamically assigned ports with the portmapper telling
people where they are. Thankfully most RPC programs allow you to force
the service to bind to a specific port with no loss in functionality.)

Quote:

Just today I had over 600 connections on a single port here (toying
with gtk-gnutella).

Er, yes, but that's not relevant. If that single port were *blocked*,
none of those connections would be able to be made.

Quote:

I had a C64, with three linear 8-bit channels and no stereo, and I
thought it was pretty nifty. (It was, for its day; the SID chip in
the C64 was an earlier version of the sound chip in the Amiga.)

Quote:

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.

Rubbish. computing was massive already when doom came out and that
predated win95.

Agreed: the great boom was in the early-to-mid '80s with the
microcomputer revolution (most of which had halfway-decent programming
languages on, so the newbies could learn to code after a fashion).
I'd wager that the microcomputers birthed many more software developers
than ever the PC did.

Quote:

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.

cobblers.

The jump from Win3.0 was significant, almost making up for the inverse
jump from Win2.x to Win3.0 (when they moved from raw assembler to C
(written on XENIX) for the Windows core).

But Win95 did provide a new UI and a new API: the change to developers
and users really was `massive'. (This sort of constant churn is one of
MS's biggest downsides, I think, particularly because the new APIs
are generally *worse* than the old, and so encrusted with bells and
whistles that the functionality is almost invisible underneath).

(You really do have to give more effective rebuttals than `cobblers'.
I don't see an *.advocacy group in the crossposts, and we're used to
actual logic here.)

Quote:

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

balls.
hehe you linux die-hard you! ;)

Again, much though it pains me to agree with SjT, I'm afraid I must.
The *hardware* industry has been pushed to greater and greater things
because of the way that each new version of Windows eats all available
resources (and gives so little back), so people are forced to upgrade
over and over again.

This means that those of us running *efficient* OSes get machines with
enough power to do just about anything we can conceive of, even if those
machines would barely run Windows and hence are nice and cheap. :)

Quote:

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.

DOOM (I and II) ran exlusively in software rendered mode. They never
had a 3D accelerated mode, and, indeed, werent ever actually a 3D
game. (doom was pseudo 3D).

From my POV (as someone whose video cards are always seemingly a
generation or two behind the leading edge), the difference between that
`pseudo 3D' and the later versions was that the pseudo 3D was actually
playable. All the later versions depended on my having thrown money at a
3D graphics card, so had a miserable frame rate.

(Of course I haven't thrown money at that: just about all that power
would ever be used for is a 3D screensaver, as I spend nearly all my
time looking at Emacs buffers. All a flashy video card would buy me is a
couple of working games and *another* bloody heat dissipation problem
and set of soon-to-fail moving parts in the shape of another fan.

Video cards with fans... sheesh...)

Quote:

Of course with the popularity recently has come all the shit 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.

Cant say I've noticed (I dont suffer those problems on linux). My
friends have noticed, however...

Oh yes. I've been to friends' houses where copies of Windows installed
a week before already have thirty or forty pieces of spyware on them,
and several duelling worms. That's one development I'm *glad* to have
missed.

Quote:

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.

Linux drivers (official ones) are in the kernel source tree for
eternity.

No they aren't. They're in the kernel source tree until nobody wants to
maintain them anymore and they break for long enough for someone to
notice. (This only happens for hardware which is both rare *and* old,
and it takes a while for people to notice, but it does happen.)

Quote:

Its telling that the entire linux kernel source, and drivers for most
hardware on most PCS since the early 386s, is a total of about 30MB
compressed, 120 odd uncompressed. when compiled its only a handful of

2.4.27 is 200Mb uncompressed; 2.6 is larger still. It's one of the
biggest source trees on my network.

Quote:

MB, or even a few hundred KB, if you compile a specific kernel for
your hardware.

This depends on the architecture --- and note that the vmlinuz binary
on i386 is gzipped by default. Un-gzipped, it's 2--3Mb for most of
my boxes these days.

New Linux kernels don't run well at all on boxes with <16Mb RAM anymore.

Quote:

Oh, and support for about 8 other architectures is in there too,
including the one I maintain (arm26).

8? More than that, Debian alone supports 11 architectures ;}

Quote:

Um, just because they `execute software' doesn't mean that your CPU
could do it as efficiently. DSPs are weird beasts with thoroughly
unusual opcodes to do all sorts of wonderful signal-processing trickery.
They're *much*, *much* more efficient than an ordinary CPU would be at
the same job, as long as that job is related to signal-processing.
(and if it's not, you probably can't get the DSP to run it at all:
most DSPs have vanishingly little storage.)

Quote:

Most notably the IDE drivers way exceed that of VIA's.

Actually my NFS box is on a VIA chipset. seems to work fine under linux...

They have intermittent problems; the NMI is hooked up in a totally
lunatic fashion and the interrupt handling is... peculiar. But they
do work.

Quote:

So i would need to compile them?

If you got yourself a distro that didnt include them you would have to
install Nvidias binaries from nvidias site. they do come with some
small sourcecode 'stubs' which Nvidia uses to circumvent the OSS
licensing (grey area that) but their installer script seems to work
for most people.

Downside: if you have kernel problems running the nvidia binary modules,
you *will* be told `unload them and reproduce it then'. With binary-only
modules loaded, basically, all bets are off, and the kernel hackers
can't diagnose problems with your kernel anymore.

Quote:

the gcc 3.x C++ compiler - PRESUME I WILL HAVE THAT?!

Odds are. gcc --version will tell you. (type it into a terminal)

If it doesn't work, you'ev got GCC < 2.95.x. (This is very unlikely.)

Quote:

KDE 3.x with Qt3 - I KNOW OF GOT THAT BUT Qt3...?

If you have KDE3 you have QT3. QT is the graphics / desktop library
used by KDE.

Specifically, Qt3 == Qt version 3.x. :)

Quote:

Build with ALSA 0.9 or better for sound - EEK?!

Perhaps you should have googled a little.

Yes: the first two hits for `ALSA' in Google are directly relevant.

Quote:

ALSA == Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. Its the replacement for OSS (Open Sound System) that linux used to use for audio.

JACK (Jack Audio Connection Kit) for audio - DOUBLE EEK!?

An audio plugin library - realtime effect thing if im not mistaken.

Fairly bleeding-edge stuff, this.

Quote:

and LADSPA - *CRIES*

Same again, realtime DSP stuff. google would have told you this. I

Very very bleeding-edge stuff. :)

You might well not need JACK or LADSPA at all, but they're very nifty
frameworks that work better if everything at least *supports* them, so
support is landing in sound-generation and -processing programs at quite
a rate..

Quote:

Pretty much exactly like DLLs. :)

Quote:

windows packages often include the DLLs with themselves, but whilst
this sometimes offers a quick fix its better to not include them so
that users can be sure that a new package doesnt splat the DLLS in use
by another package.

Plus, JACK and LADSPA are both under such active development that
any version shipped with Rosegarden would be out of date in hours. :)

Quote:

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

emu10k1 - sBlive! ?

Yes. I can verify that it works perfectly well: I've got one and am
using ALSA with it.

Quote:

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.".

(ALSA has five or six ways to build its modules: thankfully all of them
work pretty well. Pick one and use it --- or use your distro's copy of
ALSA.)

But since the things you're complaining about (JACK and LADSPA) aren't
kernel modules, there's no need to pay any attention to stuff that's
only relevant when building kernel modules.

Quote:

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.

So stick a MB or two fo gargabe on the end of the script. job done.

Might I introduce you to the file(1) command and to the concept of
different architectures.

Your binary won't run well on my UltraSPARC. ;)

Quote:

theres a system call on linux that only root can execute allowing the
effective user to be changed.

Well, technically anyone can execute it, but unless you are or were
root, or have the CAP_SETUID capability (which only root has got by
default), you're only allowed to change your effective user to the
same as its current value. :)

Quote:

theres also a mechanism that loows
selected programs to automatically run as a different user to the one
that launched it (must be set by a more privelidged user than the
'plebs').

(That user must be root or be the user owning the file or have the
CAP_FSETID capability).

Quote:

the combination of those two features allow some programs to run as
root

(or any user)

Quote:

yes this is a potential weak spot, but the programs in use in these
areas are all very small and extremely closely scrutinised. no known
holes have been discovered for a good while now.

Er, security holes in setuid applications are found with depressing
frequency: where we differ from Windows is that the holes are closed at
once.

And of course, *any* security hole may be a hole in a setuid app, as any
app may be made setuid (by a sufficiently foolish person).

Quote:

new programs that may require elevated privelidges for a tempory
period are encouraged to use these other tools rather than
re-implement the code.

Notably, after you've gained elevated privileges you can permanently
discard them again: well-written programs do that before relying on
user-supplied data, let alone running external programs.

Quote:

Quite. As long as you have the original and new source trees, the
output should be the same. (And anyone writing free software can
generally read unified diffs.)

Quote:

I can't see the benefit from you running it and sending it..

All the changes in my source would be in one patch file, so I wouldnt
have to archive up my entire source and send it to the maintainer

and the maintainer wouldn't have to work out exactly what you based it
on!

I can't think of *any* free software maintainer who would accept a pile
of source with the message that `my changes are somewhere in there': the
answer would be `please send a diff'.

Quote:

(which would be a bigger security risk than a patch would since he
could mistakenly unarchive my version over his own if I sent my entire
archive.

That's not much of a problem; everyone uses version control systems,
don't they?

Quote:

think about it - if you want to see the changes to be applied to your
files, does it matter if you run the diff or me? if I want my changes
to go to you they must be in the diff - I cant hide them.

Quite. If the maintainer doesn't *read* the diff that's another matter:
but diffs are only large if the change is large, so you could only
hide malicious hackery in a very large change (and even then your
chances of getting away with it would be minimal).

Quote:

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?

wine is about executing windows programs in a windows-a-like ABI (not
API, althoguh it has that too). it has nothing to do with what
filesystem you use - you could use EXT2, 3, reiserFS, XFS, NFS,
NTFS. no matter.

.... except that NTFS write support in Linux is *extremely* iffy still,
and best avoided.

--
`Preliminary analysis reveal there are few impact craters on Titan. This
suggests Cassini has an active surface constantly being resurfaced.'
--- BBC News Online introduces a new planetary body

Andy Fraser
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

In alt.comp.linux, SjT uttered the immortal words:

Quote:

Have you heard the expression "don't run before you can walk"? You have
little to no experience of Linux but rather than look for a distro with
packages for the software you want you go off and look at compiling from
source. Why the hell do you insist on doing things the hard way?

WHA?!! I asked a few months back what the best distro was for a
migrating XP user, near everyone recommended me SuSE so i went out and
bought it.. The friggin pro version too!

If you only stated that you were migrating from XP then of course they
would've said SuSE although I'm surprised Mandrake didn't come up. Did you
ask in a Linux group and if so which one?

Quote:

I would rather use SuSE for that fact really, i am not making things
hard for myself whatsoever,

In a previous post you specified Rosegarden as something you'd like to try.
If you insist on using SuSE for which there appears to be no up to date,
offical Rosegarden package then you're going to have to compile from
source. You're making things 100 times harder than they have to be at this
stage.

Quote:

when i checked the distros SuSE appeared
to contain the most i would want to use including this software..

Apparently not, however I haven't checked the SuSE CDs, I don't have them.
The quote from the Rosegarden website suggested to me that Rosegarden isn't
supplied with SuSE. Check the CDs yourself. You may get lucky.

Quote:

Which i know find out doesn't run correctly with it.

Then use another distro and make things easy for yourself.

--
Andy.

Ian Molton
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

SjT wrote:

Quote:

Just today I had over 600 connections on a single port here (toying with
gtk-gnutella).

But i expect that was using a port in the 7001-7009 range?

Why?

as it happens, 50507 (default is 6346 on gnutella, btw)

Quote:

Excuse me? the Archimedes had 8 channel fully synthesised *logarithmic*
stereo sound with around 32 stereo positions minimum (before you did
extra work in software - that was the hardwares capability).

The amiga had four linear 8 bit channels with fewer stereo positions.

Sorry, i didn't realise you was talking sound 'quality' i thought you
meant the music was of better quality.. i.e. better artisticly.

Well it was. it was the same tracks, but re-mixed without the
limitations of the amiga sound system. they were cracking tunes too,
despite being about 1 min long at most...

Quote:

I
never really heard the archimedes sound as the ones downstairs weren't
allowed the speakers on.

thats a shame. despite being 8 bit, you could come surprisingly close to
CD quality, due to it being logarithmic not linear... (ie. more bits
quiet detail, fewer loud detail.)

Quote:

Rubbish. computing was massive already when doom came out and that
predated win95.

It was massive at the time yeah, but in comparison it's nothing by
todays standards.

True but given it wasnt a minority thing then, the current 'success' can
hardly be attributed to M$.

Quote:

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.

cobblers.

I don't mean the technology i mean the useability, plug and play was
the big buzz word and it invited people to a ride of pure hell! :D

Huh? as you JUST said, the usability wasnt there. admittedly this was
*partly* not the fault of windows (ISA and ISAPnP sucked), but it was
certainly not plug and play (plug and pray at best).

win98SE was the earliest M$ OS that could even *remotely* be called plug
and play.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that doom and quake werent the games that broke us
into 3D gaming? the rest came later. indeed the 3DFX card that started
it all was built for quake...

Quote:

Well if you must insist on buying PACEs overpriced junk...

Pfft.. PACE hater :PPPP

With reason. I've never owned a good product made by pace.

Quote:

Gaming pushes 3D video most. as evidence look at the XBOX - a 733MHz
Celeron and plays all the latest games fine...

No windows overhead though,

Err...

Quote:

in fact only the required components are
loaded in, add to that a pretty good GFX Card that only has to render
around the 800x600 mark and it flies along.

Didnt I just say that gaming pushed the GFX side hardest?

Quote:

With windows you are forced into upgrading CPU, Memory AND Video card
every year if you're really into your games.

sure, if you want every last ounce of speed. but the memory and video
card (especially the VC) make most difference BY FAR.

Quote:

Thats nothin to do with DSP at all.

Quote:

The ISP hasn't a clue why and i wondered then whether there was some
processing that XP was screwing up on.

possibly but theres really not much overhead in pppoe (or pppoa).

Quote:

You know I do ;-) (actually the vast quantity of morons and "businesses"
on the net I blame more, but...)

But can you blame them for using such a standard platform?! I would be
shit scared to switch over to openoffice and a linux server here, i
would love to do it to see how it compares, but things like
compatibility issues with other companies would scare me to death.

Why not use an linux/openoffice system **in parallel** for a bit?

Quote:

Yeah, the thing is i paid for SuSE and so want to use it...

Ok...

Quote:

Kinda both.

the philosophy behind much of the linux kernel is to avoid putting large
(therefore buggy) code into the kernel (where its failure can bring down
the system), and instead put the minimum needed for high performance
into the kernel, and the rest into a library (dll if you like) that
provides a nice interface for applications.

ALSA has a driver component (thats in the kernel) and a library
component (that sits in userspace). Theres also a collection of
utilities that come with the library, the alsa utilities.

Quote:

Yeah i did google it, but i'm totally lost. You must appreciate that
this is an absolute world of difference from windows.

Fair enough. you have to appreciate that 'I looked at this and cant
really understand it, heres where I looked <URL>' will illicit a more
friendly reply than '<name of thing> EEEK! what the fuck?'

basic human nature - the former implies some effort, the latter implies
a spoonfeeding request.

Quote:

I don't know
how far up the beginner->advanced ladder this shit is? Maybe i'm
jumping in too high?! I just want to try out audio apps though..

compiling stuff isnt normally to hard (note we're talking applications
here, not the kernel). Usually a case of

tar [z,j]xvf archive.tar.[gz,bz2]
cd archive_name
../configure
make
make install (you probably want to become the root user first)

the first step unarchives the sourcecode
the second changes the working directory to the freshly unpacked
directory full of source
the ./configure runs a script in the working directory, which detects
all kinds of information about the system - what CPU, OS, what libraries
you have, etc.
make invokes the make program, which builds the package according the
the makefiles created by the configure script
make install copies the components you just built to the right places on
your system.

If you get any problems they will likely be at the configure step - and
almost always will tell you whats wrong like:

'checking for LADSPA... yes'
'checking for ladspa.h... no'
'Error: LADSPA found but has no headers. install the LADSPA development
headers'

so they will at least have given you something to google for, even if
you dont know what 'install the LADSPA development headers' means.

(note: the above is a made up example)

if you get errors during the make phase you are probably SOL unless you
can hack the code yourself.

Quote:

Yeah thats what i mean, in windows i would install the ASIO driver for
my soundcard (Which is the equivalent of LADSPA and JACK) and then
Cubase (Rosegarden).

Well on linux you'd install the driver for the soundcard, and then
rosegarden...

on a distro [that provides them] both of those would be binary blobs
just like on windows.

Quote:

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

emu10k1 - sBlive! ?

Nah i use the EMU10K2 - which is audigy2, but they list it as emu10k1
despite referring to it as the emu10k1, im guessing its just a
mistake.

Possibly not. on linux we dont supply drivers for 100 different TV
cards, we supply a drievr for the BT878 video input chipset.

since that chipset is used on 100 video cards, we can support them all.

Often drivers will only need some minor tweaks to support several
versions of a given chip or card(s), so rather than duplicate a driver
with only tiny differences, we roll them together into a generic driver.

Performance doesnt suffer (or if it does, the driver is split, although
possibly still sharing some common parts).

linux drivers are typically ver small too, despite their genericness.

Quote:

You seem to read selectively. the paragraph you quoted says "or build
them seperately as modules" which is what several people have told you
here already.

They seem to suggest that compiling into the kernel is the better
option though as there are far more links to that?

There is no performance penalty. the only difference is that you dont
need to reboot if you compile the driver as a module.

Quote:

yes this is a potential weak spot, but the programs in use in these
areas are all very small and extremely closely scrutinised. no known
holes have been discovered for a good while now.

Would it be possible for you to code a piece of software which could
perform this?

What do you mean?

Quote:

Also, does the software discussed above require to know the root
password? or is it like a one-way ticket straight through, no
authentication needed?

in theory - you could make a version of 'su' (switch user) that would
simply switch user, no password needed - su runs as root so it can
change user. linux authentication is based on the login / user
swithching programs, and the kernels handling of user privelidges.

Quote:

the maintainer is still going to read it though. whay do you think
tacking the malicious bit on the end is any less visible than if it were
part of the patch - patches are plaintext.

Quote:

Ok, so it's what i would probably call a windows wrapper? Crude i know
:)

I'd say 'environment' but yeah, close enough.

Quote:

I.e. you run windows executables rather than having a window
displaying a windows machine, i.e. a windows desktop?

correct - you can even have them use the linux window manager etc.

SjT
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

Andy Fraser <andyfraser31@hotmail.com> Kissed me, Licked me, then left
me a note:

Quote:

If you only stated that you were migrating from XP then of course they
would've said SuSE although I'm surprised Mandrake didn't come up. Did you
ask in a Linux group and if so which one?

I asked in one of the alt. linux groups i can't remember which though
and they redirected me to a .suse group, i also asked some of my mates
on IRC who use linux.

Quote:

I would rather use SuSE for that fact really, i am not making things
hard for myself whatsoever,

In a previous post you specified Rosegarden as something you'd like to try.
If you insist on using SuSE for which there appears to be no up to date,
offical Rosegarden package then you're going to have to compile from
source. You're making things 100 times harder than they have to be at this
stage.

Nah i aint, i read up on what SuSE offers and Rosegarden was part of
the package as standard, but it turns out to be unstable. I don't
mind doing a bit of work to get it to wrong, but you're implying that
i may never have a good version of rosegarden as long as i use SuSE..
If thats correct then that to me makes all these linux distros a total
pain in the arse and puts me off using the OS.

Quote:

when i checked the distros SuSE appeared
to contain the most i would want to use including this software..

Apparently not, however I haven't checked the SuSE CDs, I don't have them.
The quote from the Rosegarden website suggested to me that Rosegarden isn't
supplied with SuSE. Check the CDs yourself. You may get lucky.

I know an old version was included and i remember ticking it to be
installed and had problems with it, although i don't know if i had
JACK and all that other stuff running.

Quote:

Which i know find out doesn't run correctly with it.

Then use another distro and make things easy for yourself.

I've been told about 3-4 of them now, i just want the one... it's too
confusing.. why is there no standardisation here?!

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

SjT
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Video editing in Linux?

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

Quote:

But i expect that was using a port in the 7001-7009 range?

Why?
as it happens, 50507 (default is 6346 on gnutella, btw)

Sorry i thought you was using bit-torrent, totally missed the gnutella
reference.

Quote:

I don't mean the technology i mean the useability, plug and play was
the big buzz word and it invited people to a ride of pure hell! :D

Huh? as you JUST said, the usability wasnt there. admittedly this was
*partly* not the fault of windows (ISA and ISAPnP sucked), but it was
certainly not plug and play (plug and pray at best).

Yeah i'm referring to how MS advertised the OS, it was a case of 'Look
this is going to be piss easy for you to use buy one' and they kept
repeating it for each OS until they got it right.

Whether it worked or not isn't the issue, i think that got a lot of
non-computing types into buying a computer.

Quote:

Yeah, but the majority of windows based games were using the Directx
drivers.

Are you suggesting that doom and quake werent the games that broke us
into 3D gaming? the rest came later. indeed the 3DFX card that started
it all was built for quake...

No i'm referring to games that appeared in gamestores, and even petrol
stations, most people who had quake or Doom had copied them from their
mates and were games for those already into their computers.

Shit like reader rabbit and jungle book for the families kids etc.

Quote:

The ISP hasn't a clue why and i wondered then whether there was some
processing that XP was screwing up on.

possibly but theres really not much overhead in pppoe (or pppoa).

XP seems to enjoy processing it an awful lot. :)

Quote:

But can you blame them for using such a standard platform?! I would be
shit scared to switch over to openoffice and a linux server here, i
would love to do it to see how it compares, but things like
compatibility issues with other companies would scare me to death.

Why not use an linux/openoffice system **in parallel** for a bit?

Cause it's too much to ask from the users, i would get silly questions
like 'Wheres my dog gone?!'

Quote:

the philosophy behind much of the linux kernel is to avoid putting large
(therefore buggy) code into the kernel (where its failure can bring down
the system), and instead put the minimum needed for high performance
into the kernel, and the rest into a library (dll if you like) that
provides a nice interface for applications.

Does that mean that once its in the kernel you can't take it out then?

Quote:

Yeah i did google it, but i'm totally lost. You must appreciate that
this is an absolute world of difference from windows.

Fair enough. you have to appreciate that 'I looked at this and cant
really understand it, heres where I looked <URL>' will illicit a more
friendly reply than '<name of thing> EEEK! what the fuck?'

I have been reading about them on google as i'm doing my research up
front, but theres so much to take in just to install an audio app.
I've gone from installing the application, to making sure i've got the
right apps installed first to completely disregarding the distro that
i have and getting another.

I have no other word than EEK! to describe how i am feeling, i only
want a bit of advising as i'm sure when i actually go through step my
step i shall be ok, but the whole time i've got to consider all the
other stuff like where i will be getting the files from and the
digital signatures etc. It is a lot to take in.

Quote:

tar [z,j]xvf archive.tar.[gz,bz2]
cd archive_name
./configure
make
make install (you probably want to become the root user first)

the ./configure runs a script in the working directory, which detects
all kinds of information about the system - what CPU, OS, what libraries
you have, etc.

Configure script is always included with the source i presume?

Quote:

make invokes the make program, which builds the package according the
the makefiles created by the configure script
make install copies the components you just built to the right places on
your system.

Ok yeah i can see that, is there any GUI's that make this easier if
most installs work along those lines?

Quote:

'checking for LADSPA... yes'
'checking for ladspa.h... no'
'Error: LADSPA found but has no headers. install the LADSPA development
headers'

Ahhh ok, so it checks for all that then, thats quite cool.. rather
helpful too.

I remember in the past when i had problems with my connection i could
not get any information about what was going wrong so i was totally
stuck, i enabled the kinternet logging facility and received diddly
squat.. but thats an old issue which i shouldnt have now.

If i get something, even if its just a code at least i can work it out
from there.

Quote:

if you get errors during the make phase you are probably SOL unless you
can hack the code yourself.

Errors there would be down to my distro yeah?

I can't see what difference a distro can make personally, as i thought
they all ran on the same linux kernel.

Quote:

Well on linux you'd i