• Album@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Damn Lemmy users are no different from Reddit. Don’t read anything. Take anything you did read out of context. Be sure to rage post your own ignorance so we can all read about it.

    • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah sure it’s user fault and not the click bait headline, I’m sure they can describe the whole article in one headline without any confusion, oh and probably half of lemmy user are used to be redditers

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      You forgot to mention it’s no different from Reddit with the horrible titles either.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        There are a bunch of free channels on the internet that some TVs can just stream without a dedicated app. These channels are supported by ads like cable/whatever channels, but not locked behind a subscription. VLC is supporting whatever formats they use to allow (or make it easier; IDK) people to watch them if they want.

        The other part is that they’re working on web assembly to allow sites to use VLC as their embedded video player.

        • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’m so conflicted about web assembly. I’m a web developer and I think it’s going to be amazing eventually but 20% of me thinks it’s going to be a security nightmare and require a decade of fuck ups to reach its potential.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I’m mostly worried about how much less open this will make the web for simple local hacking. I often add small features to webapps I use by injecting code and hooking into their systems (when it’s not an app with open source, where I send a PR instead - and if I can work around issues I do contact the owners with a working fix).

            This will be much harder with WebAssembly. Sure, there’ll be decompilers in time - but in the time it takes me to change a small piece of behaviour in such cases, I can add multiple features in the current JS environment, even if the code is obfuscated.

            • aluminium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I’m more concerned that the web will get even slower and bloated. We are already seeing the first frameworks that ship a webassembly .NET runtime, Python runtime, JVM, … . I kinda fear that in 10 years when you visit a site you need to download runtime xyz in version abc for the 1000th time. All because some people or companies just can not be bothered to learn any new technology.

          • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            require a decade of fuck ups to reach its potential.

            That’s quicker than people, heck I’m going on my 3rd decade and still not at my potential. Or so I like to tell myself.

          • ares35@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            you don’t even need a player script; browsers today can play media on their own.

            and scripts with added features is a very crowded market.

      • Shin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        He shouldn’t have to, the point is read before commenting about a clickbait headline. If he has to spell it out that only furthers his point.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Damn Lemmy users are no different from Reddit

      We’re do you think Lemmy got all its users?

  • Blizzard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    plans to support ad-supported online media streams

    Why are they saying it like it’s something good and exciting?

    rewriting the whole core of VLC for the 4.0 release which will see a new interface

    Where have we see it before? It’s basically the classic scenario where popular software/service makes a complete chnage of design nobody asked for and it fails miserably. I recommend everyone to make a backup of the installer of the last version before this release…

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      They dont display ads, the channels send video streams that have embedded ads for money purpose things (whoever buys shit because of ads)

    • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I really don’t see the what the fuss is in this thread. The source does make it seem a bit nefarious, but even so, it appears the changes in VLC amount to adding support for a streaming format and adding a channel listing of some sort.

      FAST is simply a streaming format. Whether to run ads is an individual decision of each channel.

      If I can have a streaming client that can play certain streams versus one that can’t, I’ll obviously pick the former. (Unless they employ a DRM scheme which does weird things to my devices but it doesn’t appear that’s part of the discussion here.)

      • eveninghere@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, I think evil bastard streaming services choosing open source (VLC) is rather a win for the society.

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yep, here’s the section

        When he was talking about that, he also shared that they plan to add support for FAST channels and other kinds of ad-supported online media streams that would allow users to watch ad-supported movies, TV shows, and more.

        However, he also clarified that plans for this were not finalized yet, and if it were to happen, it would be optional for VLC users.

        .

        It does when you consider that there are over 1,500 FAST channels in the US alone, plus countless others around the globe, with the number still growing.

        They already support other forms of streams, why not this. It would be weirder if they chose to not support it

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, the guy who made vlc hasn’t charged for like 15 years now.

      For most people the only time they open VLC is to view a file locally. I’m surprised they’re not also trying to become more like plex/jellyfin then pivot to ad supported streaming

      • kratoz29@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m surprised they’re not also trying to become more like plex/jellyfin then pivot to ad supported streaming

        Well, not people are driven by money, but I do agree that several costs need to be addressed, and sadly ads are one of the means to achieve this (and more depending on your greed).

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Surprisingly, the popularity of this media player doesn’t seem to be going down in this age of online streaming, as the project reported a whopping 5 billion downloads of VLC across various platforms since 2005.

    How the fuck is number of downloads since TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE in any way indicative of popularity not declining?

    it would be optional for VLC users.

    “Optional” like all the “optional” features crammed down your throat on Plex?

    I’m very interested in the financials involved in this new change, and if someone is going to be filling their pockets in this transition.

    • maiskanzler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      How would they earn money on this? It’s still a FOSS project. They are simply revamping their GUI and adding support for one more protocol.

      Plex is NOT FOSS! Plex is a private company’s cash cow.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Your mistake is assuming for some reason that FOSS projects can’t make money when they absolutely can and have.

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      almost 1 download for every human on earth

      “BUT IT’S NOT POPULAR! ALL THE DOWNLOADS ARE FROM JANUARY 1ST 2005 AND NOBODY EVER DOWNLOADED IT EVER AGAIN! IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY BY BIG TRAFFIC CONE! I DON’T WANT FACTS LALALALALA” --this guy

      Big Traffic Cone is coming for you. It cautions us all. That’s why it’s orange with reflective stripes. You should have heeded it’s warning. Be afraid, very afraid.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        If all those downloads were from 2005 to 2015, and there’s only been a few hundred in the last nine years, that would mean the popularity has declined.

        But we don’t know that. We don’t know if the downloads have increased, decreased, or stayed the same based on the proffered numbers. We only know a flat number from the last twenty years.

        Thats the point theyre making, not that its unequivocally unpopular now.

        Also you’re about three billion shy of one download for everyone on earth.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        LOL what are you even talking about? You ever heard the phrase “lies, damned lies, and statistics”? If not, you should look it up.

      • qprimed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Big Traffic Cone is coming for you

        damn me if this is not the best Brand New Sentence I have seen in a long time. congrats!

    • Troy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve met the devs in person. They keep turning down literal suitcases full of cash from people who want to bundle adware and crap in one of the most popular programs ever. Don’t assume VLC is going down that road – they’ve stuck to their ethics for decades.

  • Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yay VLC!
    From the tail end of the short, and easy to read article: If you want an early look at the upcoming changes with VLC 4.0, you can download (https://nightlies.videolan.org/?ref=news.itsfoss.com) the latest nightly release from the official website or the latest “Edge” build from the Snap store (https://snapcraft.io/vlc?ref=news.itsfoss.com). VLC 4.0 (Early Build) (Snap Store) (https://snapcraft.io/vlc?ref=news.itsfoss.com)

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      They have an Ubuntu PPA which I used through distrobox. The weirdest way to get an app on the system, while there is a flatpak they dont seem interested in adopting it.

  • 098qwelkjzxc@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ve used MPC-HC on windows and MPV on Linux for ages, just saying for no reason in particular

    (In all seriousness this sounds like VLC has gone super corporate for no reason, abandon ship)

    • maiskanzler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Dude, they are not starting their own ad supported streaming service. They are merely adding dupport for one more streaming protocol that happens to be used for that. If these services were using RTSP for their streams, they’d already be supported. This is absolutely in line with VLC’s swiss army knife-approach.

      Otherwise, new GUI sounds good to me. The old one is proven but a bit clunky.

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I think there should be local-only players. VLC was one forever. There are tons of streaming service clients out there and I personally don’t want VLC to add this feature. But it is just my personal opinion. I never said it’s bad

          • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Idk about that. I don’t even care much cuz I don’t use VLC at all. Lol I just wanted to send a regular short controversial unpopular opinion comment. I hope it’s not considered wrong here

          • It also supports some funky stuff like raw H.264 over UDP if you use ffmpeg to prepend special packets to the start of the video stream (Ideal for a DIY low latency video streaming solution ). If you decrypt digital OTA tv signals (DVB format), VLC will play the live underlying raw mpeg stream just fine.

            Truly a swiss army knife of video playback, especially the underutilized network url file open option

        • ProtonBadger@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          One doesn’t have to use the feature and it’s not like it’s going to be felt, nor noticeably use any resources when not in use.

        • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          VLC stands for VideoLAN Client, and was originally designed as a player for network streams provided by the VideoLAN server. It also supports local media playback, which has become its most common use. It adding additional streaming functionality is just reinforcing its original purpose.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I just saw the screenshot of the early design of the new UI, looks like crap.

    I even disliked the change from wXwidgets to Qt way back in the day, I have come around and like the Qt interface now, I don’t expect that to happen with the new UI

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      10 years later

      “vlc is updating their UI again! I liked the one we have now, this just looks stupid. I don’t think I’ll like the changes.”

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s fair, though the change from wXwidgets to Qt was fairly minor compared to this

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      new ui is literal trash.

      media formats it already does, and it is expected to support nearly everything. but as far as a front-end for whatever tf they’re planning–there are plugins and extensions already, it should be there. not in the base code.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, it looks like they are trying to port the mobile UI to their main program, going backwards in terms of usabillity on mainstream computers