Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Is MPlayer2 A Viable Fork Of MPlayer?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,130

    Default Is MPlayer2 A Viable Fork Of MPlayer?

    Phoronix: Is MPlayer2 A Viable Fork Of MPlayer?

    Earlier this month MPlayer2 had its second release candidate, but it hasn't been talked about on Phoronix or much at all on the Internet. This isn't version 2.0 of MPlayer, which itself

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTI0Ng

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    590

    Default

    I'm not sure if you answered the question you posed in the title or not Michael

    Is MPlayer2 a viable fork?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Generally, in journalistic reporting, you either ask a question and state the facts, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion, or you bring attention to something (say, a new release of Fedora) and state the facts (what's new, what's missing, etc.), and allow the reader to come to a conclusion.

    I think this article is a good example of the first.

    Recently, it's been more like this**: Either ask a question and state the facts with a lot of opinion in between to sway the reader, or bring attention to something with a lot of opinion or unrelated/skewed information to sway the reader.

    **not so much on phoronix, but in general.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213

    Lightbulb

    First FFMpeg got forked, then MPlayer too.

    This is a sign the FFMpeg ecosystem needs a lot stronger and democratic leadership. The lack of a strong organization behind it is showing the problems lately, but it seems the symptoms were already there in the underground.

    I think it's time to make a proper Foundation (name it whatever yoy may want), with a strong look at consensus from different project members and in collaboration with other organizations. Look at Linux Foundation, X.Org Foundation and Document Foundation for examples.

    Forking is a good way to experiment different paths and showing different ways. It was quite good with EGCS that showed the technical superiority and got merged back to GCC, Libreoffice forked from OpenOffice and is starting to show the benefits of open government without a very big coporate head behind it.

    The most weak point of FOSS is sometimes the lack of a strong organization behind projects. This can be a non-issue in hobbyist or small projects for some time, but not when your project gains lots of importance and grow in terms of complexity. I believe that's the main reason FFMpeg and other related projects are having organizational problems so they are forking...

    At a long time, I think an Open Source Confederation must be done someday. I'm not talking about some geeky utopian idea taken from Star Trek, but looking at non-tech organizations out there that did something similar to that. This can make the community stronger and also put more pressure both in media and governments.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    There's an Arch AUR package, too.

    http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46805

    I'm currently using it, and it works well with SMPlayer, and it does feel snappier.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    41

    Thumbs up direction looks sane to me

    Runtime-switchable translations with gettext are now supported.
    finally!

    MPlayer2 does not depend on embedded FFmpeg library copies and uses FFmpeg only through its public API
    finally!

    Support for gapless playback of audio files (option -gapless-audio)
    finally!

    Future work will concentrate on improving the interface for external GUI implementations instead.
    finally!

    All in all it looks like some good architectural choices are made in this fork..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    First FFMpeg got forked, then MPlayer too.
    Not really, this project is going for a long time already (I acompany this project for almost a year, it was called mplayer-git or mplayer-uau before). But the originai idea was to create patches that would be merged to upstream MPlayer. Almost no patch was merged and the changes are getting bigger and bigger, so time to fork.

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I seem to recall that the same guys who were the main driving force in the ffmpeg 'fork' also took over certain administrative parts of the mplayer project earlier. I can't help but wonder if mplayer2 is a fork by them or caused by them or non-related. I'll try digging up the blog posts were I read about this and see if I can get some sort of overview of what (if anything) is going on.
    No, uau and verm (two of the main developers of this fork) are not involved with the recent libav issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wyatt View Post
    Wait, you can still build mplayer with gui support? And people USE it? What.
    Yeah, using ./configure --enable-gui. I remember uau saying that one of the developers of mplayer bitching about removing this piece of crappy, so you can say this is one of the motives of this fork.


    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Oh, I see!

    How about compatibility with vaapi patches? Has anyone tried so far?

    Cheers
    The best thing you can do is try. I remember to compile mplayer-git with CoreAVC patches and it worked just fine. But the changes on the future version 2.1 will be more agressive, so I believe from this version towards there will be no patch compatibility from mplayer.

    You can always send a feature request on their bug tracker too (http://devel.mplayer2.org/wiki/Bugs).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10

    Default

    And now mplayer and mplayer2 both are forked. From the mpv-player site:

    https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/bl...en/changes.rst
    Why this Fork?

    MPlayer wants to maintain old code, even if it is very bad code. It seems mplayer2 was forked because MPlayer developers refused to get rid of all the cruft. The mplayer2 and MPlayer codebases also deviated enough to make a reunification unlikely.
    mplayer2 development is slow, and it is hard to get in changes. Details withheld as to not turn this into a rant.
    MPlayer rarely merged from mplayer2, and mplayer2 practically stopped merging from MPlayer (not even code cleanups or new features are merged)
    mpv intends to continuously merge from mplayer-svn and mplayer2, while speeding up development. There is willingness for significant changes, even if this means breaking compatibility.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10

    Default

    And now mplayer and mplayer2 both are forked to mpv-player.

    From the site:
    https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/bl...en/changes.rst
    Why this Fork?

    MPlayer wants to maintain old code, even if it is very bad code. It seems mplayer2 was forked because MPlayer developers refused to get rid of all the cruft. The mplayer2 and MPlayer codebases also deviated enough to make a reunification unlikely.
    mplayer2 development is slow, and it is hard to get in changes. Details withheld as to not turn this into a rant.
    MPlayer rarely merged from mplayer2, and mplayer2 practically stopped merging from MPlayer (not even code cleanups or new features are merged)
    mpv intends to continuously merge from mplayer-svn and mplayer2, while speeding up development. There is willingness for significant changes, even if this means breaking compatibility.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •