I thought MPlayer used closed source proprietary libraries for DVD and MP3 playback. Yet, this MPlayer portable app seems to play both just fine.
Just wondering...
New: System Informer (Apr 21, 2024), Platform 29.5 (Apr 24, 2024)
1,000+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
those libraries have been removed from the installation. I'm also sure I removed the codecs pack from my SMPlayer Portable, too.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
So when MP3s and DVDs play fine in MPlayer Portable is it because it is using codecs on my host machine? If so, is this truly portable?
John said not to use DVD's in MPlayer Portable. My SMPlayer Portable fixes that DVD remains. Anyway, you can download the codecs packages from the MPlayer Website. Then it should work.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Okay, so I am confused. MPlayer Portable is portable as long as you do not play formats that are using non-open source libraries inside of it, or this is a version of MPlayer without those libraries and to be truly portable you shouldn't play these types of files so you won't use the host machine's codecs?
I am very confused. LOL
We're all confused lol. There were so many issues with the MPlayer package that development kind of stopped on it. I think it was supposed to be dropped in support of SMplayer, which both John and digitxp are working on version of. SMplayer is a UI that uses MPlayer as a backend and fixes a lot of the mplayer issues.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Seems like VLC is the answer, just too bad it has some problems too...at least in my experiences.
Yeah, they all have their issues, but VLC is much more stable than MPlayer IMO.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
feed..............the...................troll
Don't everyone be that naive.....
Wow, I am a troll again.
Is this how you always treat people trying to get involved and ask tough questions?
Thanks for YOUR personally warm welcome!
No, this is how I treat jerks like you who I'm fed up with. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this MPlayer thread, but it sounds to me like you are trying to stir the pot and try to prove some point about how you should be able to post your ImgBurn launcher.
Give me a break. There's no way that I buy you're sincere about the question you asked in your original post.
relax....ur really not helping the situation. at all.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Not........helping........
things started off rocky, this is a civilized conversation though, things are going fine here, we're discussing MPlayer, no arguing going on.
Continuing a negative attitude won't stop the bad attitude....we argued before, we aren't arguing now, let's all move on and just continue discussing PortableApps.com and their apps in a civilized manner.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I'm done now. It's out of my system and I'm going out the the bar
But believe me, this is no "civilized" thread. There's an ulterior motive to his original question. It takes a lot to get on my nerves, but this guy did it in record time.
This is a serious thread, and you are right. Though it is not an ulterior motive, it is a clear motive. I am disputing the validity of MPlayer as an officially sanctioned PortableApp.com portable application...when I believe it is not truly either fully portable or possibly includes closed source/proprietary libraries. Thus, I am asking for reflection and clarification and not selective enforcement.
Well said. Your intent didn't seem hidden at all, it was a direct question about the validity of the MPlayer Portable package.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
have the same issue?
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
At the moment PortableApps will publish clippled software without mentioning it I will go to the official apps in no-time.
What good is an alternative media player that cannot compete with MS MediaPlayer.
Hmm is that why I have so many files not understood by VideoLan?
If apps that use closed source binaries cannot be supported by PortableApps, then PortableApps should not bother to make a portable version of them at all.
There is a difference between "supporting" and "distributing". If it is not open source, it can't be distributed via SF.net. That doesn't mean it is bad, illegal, immoral, or fattening, or that we can't download it and use it. It doesn't even mean John can't find another distribution method and include it in the Suite later.
Lawyers do gum up the works sometime. For example, suppose John has an offer from a USB drive manufacturer to include the Suite on all of its new drives by default. If everything is on the same license, the lawyers won't have much of a problem advising that no one will be sued. If there are a bunch of licenses, it takes that much more effort. If there are patents and copyrights where the licenses are ambiguous, or some licenses that conflict with other licenses, it can get impossibly complex.
Yes of course you should go to another source if the PortableApps.com suite doesn't offer what you want. On the other hand, it is kind of fun to figure out how to make things portable and/or find software products whose license is compatible. And there's a good feeling about supporting Open Source.
MC
I did some research and the mp3 support is done with lame, an open source mp3 encoder. I am not 100% sure about the dvd support but I think its open source too.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate