dialy build/codecs

[Luke Kuhn]

I always pull out anything that supports digital rights management, pay music, pay software, etc from all of my machines. Ubuntuone (largely due to background daemons that consume resources) , software-center(can be used to install pay software, banned from my systems), and all of Mono(too much BS) are removed and all available A/V codecs as well as synaptic are installed.  I have never heard ot mutually incompatable codecs other than versionitis being released.  We could of course advise people "consumer or producer, choose one," but that makes us too part of the problem. 

If people find that they can't play some pair of files both on the same computer booted from the same partition, that is beyond ugly and needs to be fixed even if it means renaming some binaries or libraries so they can live together or be versioned independantly.  I would simply drop them in /local/whatever do deal with this, not using dpkg to install them (done that with some other packages in the past), though that does not alway work

About that "Itunes" model, I am very strongly oppposed to distribution of DRM'ed files, though remember I am from the "no paid content" side of the house.  I won't even have DRM'ed media in the house unless I also have software to crack it. DRM doesn't even work anyway, it's a form of encryption with a very severe key distribution issue, and as a result usually a very small number of keys. Libdvdcss, for instance, can simply brute-force the very old "encryption" of DVD's, anything that can play DVD video can try every possible key in minutes. It would be like encrypting my hard drive (against law enforcement as I do) but accepting the restriction that the passphrase must be a word found in the dictionary-and that it would also be used to encrypt every file I publish (in my activist work) and every user must therefore have the password. Of course, anyone back at the Hoover building with John the Ripper and a dictionary would be able to play it too, so what would be the point?

If DRM software/codecs are ever used by Ubuntuone, either the source code will have to be published or the software not be GPL licensed. If open-source, I can guarantee you that the DRM would be cracked and the crack published before the first song was sold.


> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:32:53 -0800
> From: "Len Ovens" <len at ovenwerks.net>
> To: "Ubuntu Studio Development & Technical Discussion"
> 	<ubuntu-studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Subject: Re: dialy build
> Message-ID:
> 	<6bdcb55cf08d9c6457a337e9869ed396.squirrel at www.ovenwerks.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> 
> 
> >> Install failed... seems a lot of our codec packages (libavcodec-extra-53
> >> for example) have to have 0.7.2-1ubuntu1 gone.. does ubuntu1 need to be
> >> deselected? I didn't save the log before I tried a second time...
> 
> > firstly i want to thank you for your initiative to test!  that's
> > bloody amazing, mate :)
> 
> No problem... I have two extra drives for testing... but I am realizing I
> could have done with one. The 40G usb drive could be used with either
> machine I have. The bonus with the new drive in the desktop is that it is
> better for testing audio flow from one kernel to the next... less likely
> to be a bottleneck than a usb2 drive.
> 
> > i do not know if this specifically addresses the problem you are
> > having but i am aware of a library that is in a transitional stage
> > that is probably affecting ubuntu studio at some level.  the package
> > is ia32-lib and i believe it is changing how it is built regarding
> > multi-arch, although there is a good chance that i do not fully
> > understand it completely.
> >
> Could be. However, it looks to me that Ubuntu is trying to get away from
> some of the legally risky codecs by coming up with their own (possibly
> closed source) codecs. I find it interesting it is linked to Ubuntu 1
> (that is a one) which does music streaming. Some of the services are not
> open or free. I would not be surprised if they were headed towards an
> "itunes" like thing with pay per view/listen kinds of stuff. I have
> nothing against that idea... but it may make things hard for some of the
> codecs we need which are not just for consumer use but professional use
> too... that is not encumbered by stuff to keep us from copying our own
> product for example. I am not sure they want an official ubuntu deriv to
> ship without it. But I suspect we need it out for at least some workflows.
> Having a "warning this software needs to be removed to install this other"
> may be good enough.
> 
> > for example, there is an automated email from colin watson that shows...
> > ubuntustudio-meta 0.90 produces uninstallable binaries:
> >  * ubuntustudio-desktop (amd64 i386)
> >  * ubuntustudio-font-meta (amd64 i386)
> >  * ubuntustudio-graphics (amd64 i386)
> 
> Ja, saw that. It accounts for the desktop issue, but not the codec issue.
> I figured the sooner people were aware of extra problems the better. The
> text with the fault is:
> 
> --------------8<----------------------------
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target: The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target:  libavcodec-extra-53 : Conflicts: libavcodec53
> but 4:
> 0.7.2-1ubuntu1 is to be installed
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target:  libavformat-extra-53 : Conflicts:
> libavformat53 but
> 4:0.7.2-1ubuntu1 is to be installed
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target:  libavutil-extra-51 : Conflicts: libavutil51
> but 4:0.
> 7.2-1ubuntu1 is to be installed
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target:  liblensfun0 : Depends: liblensfun-data but it
> is not
>  installable
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target:  libpostproc-extra-52 : Conflicts:
> libpostproc52 but
> 4:0.7.2-1ubuntu1 is to be installed
> Nov  9 14:58:25 in-target:  libswscale-extra-2 : Conflicts: libswscale2
> but 4:0.
> 7.2-1ubuntu1 is to be installed
> ------------------------------8<----------------------
> 
> That does not look like transition library so much as an "either or" kind
> of thing.
> 
> I would guess I should have been more specific as to what I meant. I had
> to do yet another reinstall to get this text as I tried one with no
> workflows installed that didn't have this problem.
> 
> Packaging and setting up distros is not one of my talents :) I am not sure
> where to start learning. But this problem looks to me like a straight
> conflict between two packages.
> 
> -- 
> Len Ovens
> www.OvenWerks.net
> 
> 
> 

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-devel/attachments/20111110/4e0348bc/attachment.html>