First batch of videos from LibrePlanet 2013 published!
First batch of LibrePlanet videos are available, for those that are interested:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/first-batch-of-videos-from-libreplanet-2013-published
Reposting here, for anyone interested.
On 08/08/13 14:04, Jason Self wrote:
> First batch of LibrePlanet videos are available, for those that are
> interested:
>
> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/first-batch-of-videos-from-libreplanet-2013-published
--
Andrew Roffey http://andrew.roffey.org
GPG fingerprint F9E6 E6C4 0080 85F4 0E30 B0D9 7F7B DC7F 9657 B073
The Right To Read - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
On 08/08/13 17:35, Andrew R. wrote:
> Reposting here, for anyone interested.
Umm, wrong list, sorry.
Andrew.
Its funny how the Trisquel videos are hosted on Ubuntu One, a 3rd party cloud service where the client is purged from the Trisquel repos because the client and service are considered unethical. Hypocrite much? Why couldn't Ruben host on the Trisquel servers? Even Jason Self was nice enough to host these on his site too.
On 09/08/13 12:00, t3g wrote:
> Its funny how the Trisquel videos are hosted on Ubuntu One, a 3rd
> party cloud service where the client is purged from the Trisquel
> repos because the client and service are considered unethical.
> Hypocrite much? Why couldn't Ruben host on the Trisquel servers?
> Even Jason Self was nice enough to host these on his site too.
Using Ubuntu One over HTTP doesn't require proprietary software. Using a
cloud service for public distribution isn't really too bad either, if
you can easily replace that service.
Andrew.
There is a difference between the client (which is proprietary), and the web service (remember that the software is running on the server, and not on your computer, so it cannot do any harm. The only problem can be if the website is using some JavaScript code with unmarked/non-free license, but that's a freedom issue, and not a technical one, since the code is human-readable, and thus it can be auditioned, except if code obfuscation was done).
The reason to choose Ubuntu One for multimedia hosting is simple: it supports embedding (and the audio/video does not need to be re-encoded, 'cause that automaticaly lowers the visual/audible quality, while doesn't give any benefits other than HTML5 compatibility, which is anyway questionable, since the original material is coded with Theora/Vorbis, and is already supported within Firefox/Abrowser). I tinkered with various other options (Amazon S3, Dropbox, FileChum, gobblin.se, Google Drive, MediaFire, Mega, and probably others), but none of them worked the way I wanted, since the idea was to have it playable within the Trisquel website.
MediaGoblin is great, except that it's working on a different principle (it a web-player, with its usual side-effects), and cannot be used as a file hosting service (this is not entirely true, since the uploaded media can be downloaded in the originally uploaded/source version, but embedding still doesn't work).
> There is a difference between the client (which is proprietary)
Talking about Ubuntu One, I think you're wrong.
The client is released under the GPLv3;
the server software is proprietary which is bad for canonical, not for us.
I don't see any problem using ubuntu one with complete data encryption beside of the fact that it might not work very well.
I heard many bad things about ubuntu one's sync behaviour which seems to be buggy.
Server storage gets deleted instead of new folder on the pc gets synced etc.
Yes, you can be right. I occasionally read something about Ubuntu One, where it was mentioned as proprietary, and since the software was removed from the repositories, I thought that it is proprietary. Sorry for the misinformation here.