Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On 10/13/13 17:38, Thomas Mueller wrote: On the question of playing Adobe Flash in FreeBSD, could one use the MS-Windows 32-bit version with (i386-)Wine? I plan to try that. Apparently that won't solve much. The primary issue now with watching flash movies is the drm - on linux it somehow uses hal and dbus, on windows it uses the registry. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On the question of playing Adobe Flash in FreeBSD, could one use the MS-Windows 32-bit version with (i386-)Wine? I plan to try that. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 05:31:56 +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:54:24 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote: On 10/11/13 5:38 PM, Walter Hurry wrote: FreeBSD 9.1 I want ONE shared lib; i.e. rsvg.so, which is provided by x11-toolkits/py-gnome-desktop. Unfortunately, it seems that going the normal route I shall have to install 80! ports to get it. Is there an easier way? Actually I think you want x11-toolkits/gtk20..? Would pkg_add work for you? Maybe graphics/librsvg2 is better suited (even though it's version 2 of the library). The problem initially mentions will remain: lots of installation dependencies. Sadly, that seems to be normal today as modern software tends to rely on layers of libraries of abstraction of tools of utilities of stuff of layers of layers of other abstractions. :-) As you see: gnome-desktop and gtk20. That should bring your warning lights up: lots of dependencies ahead! When you try to install a simple desktop environment, you'll be confronted with hundreds of packages to be installed, some of them you've probably never had thought of in regards of what you need to install a desktop, such as two or more different databases, LaTeX, translators, and other surprising stuff. This will probably apply to most complex components and parts of desktop environments or X11 toolkits (as mentioned above). As I mentioned, the librsvg2 port will install lib/librsvg-2.so. It might require you to re-install your target application to link against that library. A library libsvg.so (without version number) doesn't seem to be in the ports tree by that name. My lazy man's method of searching what port might contain the library: Midnight Commander, go to /usr/ports, Meta-?, seach in pkg-plist, search for text librsvg and examine the results with PF3. This method relies on approaches that might be wrong... :-) Note that my (locally installed) ports tree is not up to date anymore so you should consider performing a search on a recent tree to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thanks Polytropon, but the one I needed was this: x11-toolkits/py-gnome-desktop/pkg-plist:%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/gtk-2.0/ rsvg.so I have given in, let it install all 80 ports, saved the one shlib I need and deleted the ports again. All is now well. By the way, I needed it for the 'screenlets' Python applications; in particular ClockScreenlet.py. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
I don't know what others think, but what *I* really want is that the free software versions of Flash (gnash and klash, etc) work at least as well as versions of Adobe Flash do, or if versions of Adobe Flash are to be used, that it will be free and covered by the GPL. Its unlikely to happen unless we start a campaign among the Free Software users of the world to make Flash free software. Yes, I know HTML 5 is just around the corner, but we've seen a concerted effort already (in the European Parliament at least) to introduce DRM into HTML 5 and though it may make using Flash marginally easier, it would be a retrograde step if DRM is to be introduced. So what are we left with? Free software to replicate what Flash does (at least) that does not have the taint of proprietary software? Is that not an achievable goal? I can't code but would be willing to join a project with those achievable goals, but it hasn't appeared yet, so I don't seriously expect it will happen any time soon. ++ Graham Todd signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 23:28:40 +0100, gct7photogra...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know what others think, but what *I* really want is that the free software versions of Flash (gnash and klash, etc) work at least as well as versions of Adobe Flash do, or if versions of Adobe Flash are to be used, that it will be free and covered by the GPL. First of all, keep in mind you're walking corporate territory here. No company will give you anything for free, and even if it looks free, there's a catch somewhere. Flash as a technology is dying. It didn't make the transition to the growing mobile markets. That's why Adobe does not continue its Linux line of product - a completely reasoname business decision. People who use, or to be correct, _abuse_ Flash as a replace- ment for markup and content are not interested in bringing their product to your attention and reception. What I'd like to see would be a Flash plugin integrated in the web browser, with the option of being switched off. I'd consider it a 1st class citizen by demanding that is has the same status as embedded media, centered text, a PNG image or a hyperlink, being a functional module of the web browser like the renderer, the CSS interpreter, the JS interpreter or something like that. Could you imagine to install a pro- prietary plugin to be able to see a JPG image? To see text centered? To click on a hyperlink? And all the time keep in mind that it is backdoored? Hmmm... Its unlikely to happen unless we start a campaign among the Free Software users of the world to make Flash free software. That won't happen. Flash is the property of a corporation. The only alternative I see is that this corporation would donate the product, releasing all the sources and abandoning all involved lawyer-crap. But that won't happen. I think most companies better close away the stuff they won't develop anymore instead of handing it over to a community. Yes, I know HTML 5 is just around the corner, but we've seen a concerted effort already (in the European Parliament at least) to introduce DRM into HTML 5 and though it may make using Flash marginally easier, it would be a retrograde step if DRM is to be introduced. As far as I know, DRM will be covered by the upcoming standard. This means it will be _possible_ to implement DRM solutions in HTML. _Using_ them - that's a totally different field. Keep in mind an important thing: Alternatives for Flash have been around for a decade at least. Video, audio, interaction - all possible without it. It's not just about the browser plugin (the player), it's also about the creative tools that people use to produce the stuff. Those tools are offered usually in expensive commercially distributed suites. As soon as developers and creators get aware of alternatives that they can learn and use for free, they _might_ change, but only if the mindset changes. It's not just about those tools, it's also about file formats. What I'm talking about is media codecs. Some of them offer DRM capabilites, others don't. Some of them are highly infected with patents and other lawyer-crap. There are reasons why some systems and environments can play various formats out of the box, and others can't. Which formats are efficient for use with the Internet? Which offer scaling and streaming capabilities, important for mobile users who demand lower quality, less data transfer, and tolerance to higher latency? Which codecs can make use of a decoder made in hardware? _This_ problem also has to be solved! Now put this back into relation with my initial idea of making that kind of content decoder part of the web browser. The same way you see a JPG image on a web page and click on a hyperlink... It should be easy, but sadly it isn't. HTML5 tries to solve those problems. Its markup will be better suited for handling media content, plus CSS and JS will be important players on the interaction field. There are already projects that utilize those tools, and _developer tools_ as well as _creator tools_ will be present. Maybe they will even be present for free. YouTube can do fine without Flash already. Online games in HTML5 are appearing. On the other hand, Flash is a no-go on mobile, and mobile is becoming more and more important to consumers. Additionally, more and more people become aware of the danger of proprietary software (in regards of privacy and corporate control, as well as an improving understanding of what DRM does to their freedom). It will take some time to show significant effect. Let's hope people are going to get smarter than I assume. :-) So what are we left with? Free software to replicate what Flash does (at least) that does not have the taint of proprietary software? Is that not an achievable goal? It is a _desired_ goal. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On Sun, 2013-10-13 at 04:48 +0200, Polytropon wrote: Let's hope people are going to get smarter than I assume. :-) It's new, not even 100 years old. Within our lifetimes people likely become more stupid, but yes, it will take some generations and people will get smarter. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Do I really have to install 80 packages?
FreeBSD 9.1 I want ONE shared lib; i.e. rsvg.so, which is provided by x11-toolkits/py-gnome-desktop. Unfortunately, it seems that going the normal route I shall have to install 80! ports to get it. Is there an easier way? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On 10/11/13 5:38 PM, Walter Hurry wrote: FreeBSD 9.1 I want ONE shared lib; i.e. rsvg.so, which is provided by x11-toolkits/py-gnome-desktop. Unfortunately, it seems that going the normal route I shall have to install 80! ports to get it. Is there an easier way? Actually I think you want x11-toolkits/gtk20..? Would pkg_add work for you? Best, --Glenn ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Do I really have to install 80 packages?
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:54:24 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote: On 10/11/13 5:38 PM, Walter Hurry wrote: FreeBSD 9.1 I want ONE shared lib; i.e. rsvg.so, which is provided by x11-toolkits/py-gnome-desktop. Unfortunately, it seems that going the normal route I shall have to install 80! ports to get it. Is there an easier way? Actually I think you want x11-toolkits/gtk20..? Would pkg_add work for you? Maybe graphics/librsvg2 is better suited (even though it's version 2 of the library). The problem initially mentions will remain: lots of installation dependencies. Sadly, that seems to be normal today as modern software tends to rely on layers of libraries of abstraction of tools of utilities of stuff of layers of layers of other abstractions. :-) As you see: gnome-desktop and gtk20. That should bring your warning lights up: lots of dependencies ahead! When you try to install a simple desktop environment, you'll be confronted with hundreds of packages to be installed, some of them you've probably never had thought of in regards of what you need to install a desktop, such as two or more different databases, LaTeX, translators, and other surprising stuff. This will probably apply to most complex components and parts of desktop environments or X11 toolkits (as mentioned above). As I mentioned, the librsvg2 port will install lib/librsvg-2.so. It might require you to re-install your target application to link against that library. A library libsvg.so (without version number) doesn't seem to be in the ports tree by that name. My lazy man's method of searching what port might contain the library: Midnight Commander, go to /usr/ports, Meta-?, seach in pkg-plist, search for text librsvg and examine the results with PF3. This method relies on approaches that might be wrong... :-) Note that my (locally installed) ports tree is not up to date anymore so you should consider performing a search on a recent tree to make sure I didn't miss anything. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
