Movies require that you install Quicktime ... FOSS?

Oh great. After finally having removed all traces of Quicktime from the PC and made it run fast and clean again, this new dependency is pretty sad.

Joy. Back to the unsolicited updates causing LD's again ...

For those of us who want to use just the stream encapsulation and not the proprietary Quicktime codecs, is there such a thing as an open-source version?

iirc there is a quicktime codec pack you can get, it may require a bit of googling though

Codecs only? You want Quicktime Alternative. It may not be Open Source, but it does the job, doesn't install junk everywhere, and you can remove it easily.

Thanks, that might help, I'll give it a go.

A quick search through Freshmeat turned up OpenQuicktime and two or three other related libraries, but nothing that runs on Windoze too it seems.

Hopefully once we get the native Linux client for SL (was going to be 1Q 2005, I guess it's slipped) we'll be able to use one of those alternatives instead.

Morgaine, bad luck for the Linuxers, it seems that LL has put the Linux client "on hold" for a long time. The last official comment on an in-world meeting (I guess the transcript is still online somewhere, but I haven't found it...) was something like a resident asking: "So, will we have a Linux client with 1.6?" (since both Philip and Cory promised it for 1Q2005 in December 2004) and the answer was: "We talked with all the people wanting a Linux client - yes, with all the 10 "

There were some people protesting, but the idea that came out of that meeting is that they wouldn't concentrate so much effort on a Linux client as before It sounds like the Linuxers out there simply boot up Windows when they want to log in into SL, or do creative stuff with Wine.

I want a Linux client and nobody talked to ME!
So that makes us 11.

12 .. but at least SL works in wine (it even works with quicktime )

13... It works with wine? How? What version?

Yep that's what I've been using for a long time now. Works perfect!

I'm using 3.3.2-1, it has some issues of not saving its config file when I quit. (means for a while it would give me the helpful new user hints, think I might have convinced it to stop in another older version)

But it seems to work besides that with SL, and with quicktime installed, with quicktime.

(you may need to install both with a newer version of Cedega.

WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

1Q 2005, please, like Philip said, plus or minus a bit. Slippage I can understand, in view of the current bugs. Going back on an offer of hope for those of us who are only struggling with crappy Windoze as a stop gap is not on.

If you don't support us, LL, we don't support you. It's pretty simple.

Heh. Well, the way I see things is pretty simple. There are people in LL working with both Macs and Windows, and so, they naturally ported SL to those platforms. There wasn't anybody with a Linux desktop around, so, they asked around in SL, and rounded up a few people interested in a Linux version of SL. Imagine those Olde Tymes when there were just 300 people around, and 10-15 would love to have a Linux version. That would amount to probably 5% of the SL population, and would be interesting to please. Nowadays we have 30,000, but still the same 10-15 stick around from the Olde Tymes. The point is, can we gather 1000-1500 Linux users who want to have a SL version running under Linux?

If yes, I'm pretty certain that LL could be "moved" towards accelerating the development of the Linux version. If not, well, you can't really blame them...?

The old argument "but if there were a Linux port, many more people would join" is pretty weak, actually. I have posted on several non-SL forums just to see how the reaction would be (and I would encourage you to do the same!). My initial feedback was very unsatisfatory. Most die-hard Linux fanatics would kill for a Linux version of SL, but they wouldn't be willing to pay the US $9,95 for it. That's the same reason why great companies like Loki - who ported marvellous stuff to Linux like Alpha Centauri - disappeared. The Linux community is highly opposed to "pay" for anything. What can I say? It's in their genes

So, while I'd love to have a Linux version myself - I'm part of a "recycling hardware" project which is going to employ old Pentium IIIs to run Linux + OpenOffice, and which would certainly need to have SL running on that hardware in the medium term - I can understand LL's reasoning. Porting and mantaining SL to a platform requires a lot of effort and a higher cost, which has to be recovered in some way... so if you know several Linux die-hard fans, and want them to join, have them voice their opinions strongly on the forums and on emails to LL A bit of pressure sometimes work wonders - if it is done gently and with persuasive arguments I'd imagine that if one of the "standard distributions" - say, Debian - would have a written statement that they would distribute a SL version within their distribution, this would be some "leverage" for LL to support a Linux version...

Then again, I may be completely wrong, and they are about to launch the Linux version tomorrow

Oh, there's no doubt about that (I'd be more than happy to pay any reasonable amount, if it were properly supported), but I don't think that paying for the new client has any strong impact on LL fortunes. LL make their real money from the recurring subscriptions and land rents, not from any one-off payments for anything.

More importantly though, the number of people who express an interest in a Linux client can bear almost no relationship whatsoever to the numbers who would use one if it were available. For a start, only a small proportion of people frequent the forums, an even smaller proportion read the relevant threads, and even fewer bother to make post. That's the way it always works, in all games and forums everywhere.

Well my approach to this issue is simple: if LL doesn't want to work on a native Linux client (but by all accounts it's almost ready, since it was in the priority queue along with Havoc2), then they should release the sources right now in whatever state they currently are for the community to get working.

Professing support for open source and then specifically stopping work on the native Linux client is completely disingenuous. My advice is, don't lose the support of the open source community, keep working at it.

Oh, I dunno about that (I'd be more than happy to pay any reasonable amount, if it were properly supported), but I don't think that paying for the new client has any strong impact on LL fortunes. LL make their real money from the recurring subscriptions and land rents, not from any one-off payments for anything.

More importantly though, the number of people who express an interest in a Linux client can bear almost no relationship whatsoever to the numbers who would use one if it were available. For a start, only a small proportion of people frequent the forums, an even smaller proportion read the relevant threads, and even fewer bother to post. That's the way it always works, in all games and forums everywhere.

The reality is quite different: if a Linux client became available, and it were highlighted in a Slashhdot post, LL would probably "suffer" thousands of downloads in the first hour!

Well my approach to this issue is simple: if LL doesn't want to work on a native Linux client (but by all accounts it's almost ready, since it was in the priority queue along with Havoc2), then they should release the sources right now in whatever state they currently are for the community to get working.

Professing support for open source and then specifically stopping work on the native Linux client is completely disingenuous. My advice is, don't lose the support of the open source community, keep working at it.

So all in all the only thing I now need QT for is to add stream hinting to MP4s using export. Nice...

Does anyone happen to know of an alternative to that final dependency that I have?

tvmia

/esc