Software Center
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Does the package manager have Ubuntu Software Center within it so I can install either flashplugin, flash plugin-nonfree, or Adobe Flash? Or is there an alternative to Flash? I never had any luck with Gnash. Just wanted to know before I download and install in Virtualbox.
THANK YOU for the time and consideration.
> Does the package manager have Ubuntu Software Center within it so I
> can install either flashplugin, flash plugin-nonfree, or Adobe Flash?
We don't recommend nonfree software and won't help with installing it here.
> Or is there an alternative to Flash? I never had any luck with
> Gnash.
I had similar experience with Gnash. There are many working ways to
watch YouTube videos, like its HTML 5 mode with new browsers,
FlashVideoReplacer, youtube-dl, cclive, or WatchVideo (this one is not
included in Trisquel, I used it several months ago and contributed to it
before). At least several of these programs support videos from other
websites.
The problem is that there are other Flash sites besides Youtube that these custom Gnash modifications and MiniTube do not help. I like gaming so I go to IGN. Flash video. I watch stuff on GameTrailers. Flash video. I keep up with sports on ESPN. Flash video.
Anything and everything is still serving Flash. I would LOVE like the rest of you to have everything HTML5 but content providers like plugins like Flash and Silverlight because they can DRM protect their streams. HTML5 does not do that and even if it did, it would violate the FSF's many policies about wanting everything free and open.
The FSF would rather content providers not run a business, make a profit, and pay the salaries of their employees so Stallman can take other people's money to give propaganda speeches all over the world while eating things off of his foot in the process.
I'm sorry. The US economy is still not doing well and many people are out of work. Things are being more outsourced to overseas markets while the people here suffer. Obama is a joke in his "jobs creation" plan which means higher taxes on businesses and punishing people for being rich off of their idea. No wonder many companies are forced to outsource to stay afloat.
> The problem is that there are other Flash sites besides Youtube that
> these custom Gnash modifications and MiniTube do not help. I like
> gaming so I go to IGN. Flash video. I watch stuff on
> GameTrailers. Flash video. I keep up with sports on ESPN. Flash video.
WatchVideo supports several sites other than YouTube. I have never
visited the sites you listed, I don't know if it would be difficult to
support them.
> Anything and everything is still serving Flash.
I browse without any Flash implementation, with JavaScript disabled on
sites where I don't need to use it, and I very rarely meet useful Flash
(most is for ads, most of the rest are embedded YouTube videos).
"Anything and everything" suggests it being something more important.
> I would LOVE like the
> rest of you to have everything HTML5 but content providers like
> plugins like Flash and Silverlight because they can DRM protect their
> streams. HTML5 does not do that and even if it did, it would violate
> the FSF's many policies about wanting everything free and open.
It's possible for free software to implement DRM, e.g. Okular has an
option to not allow actions disabled by PDF's DRM, the trivially
breakable worksheet protection in LibreOffice is similar. It's
different with e.g. libdvdcss, since laws like DMCA might restrict
sharing it.
Having a free software implementation of a DRM scheme makes it easily
possible to do things which its authors wanted to restrict. (Well-known
examples in cryptography show that access to source code is not needed
to reverse engineer encryption algorithms.) Since DRM works by allowing
things which are for programs equivalent with the things which its
authors want to restrict, it's obviously broken and such implementations
will be made.
> The FSF would rather content providers not run a business, make a
> profit, and pay the salaries of their employees
Any business based on making artificial restrictions is harmful for the
society and should not be done. There are enough real problems to solve.
(Another problem is that the whole idea of having big content providers
makes problems which are unnecessary when the public is allowed to share
the works.)
There are ways to make money that do not involve doing evil (restricting users with DRMs for instance)!
Notice also that business making more money (or paying less taxes) does not means higher salaries (with a high unemployment rate, the salaries do not increase because people would rather have a badly paid job than no job at all). In the current US context, that only means more money to the managers and stockholders. People who suffer keep on suffering until the unemployment rate decreases. And why can't the industries outside USA thrive if they are more competitive? I thought the USA were a liberal country.
flashplugin (or variants of) is not provided by the Trisquel repositories because they are considered non-free software. There are alternatives to flash. Please see the documentation page on playing videos without adobe flash.
Chromium with "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra" was able to play on most YouTube and Vimeo sites but DailyMotion said I needed Flash. Firefox was not as capable when I disabled Flash. I know that H.264, AAC, and MP3 are not free software, but is installing the "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra" ok? I ask because VLC plays the same formats but is free software and gets a pass from the FSF in playing those "restricted" formats. Surely since VLC uses FFMPEG and "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra" uses FFMPEG as well, shouldn't it be in the clear?
As far as I understand, H.264, AAC, and MP3 aren't software at all; they're file formats. The issues with them are patent issues, not copyright issues. If there is free software available that can play these formats, then that's fine.
Based on what you've said, I assume chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra is free software. But it isn't a case of being "in the clear" or not. You can install whatever you like.
You make much confusion between the copyright law (being a Free software is a question that relates to this law), the patent law (the audio/video formats you mention are covered by many software patents and that is the problem they raise) and, in another thread, the trademark law (whose objective is to be able to identify a product). These laws have nothing in common.
To respond to your post: H.264, AAC, and MP3 are formats covered by software patents what raises risks in their implementation/use in some countries (like the USA or Japan where software patents are authorized, unlike the European Union, China, India or Brazil where, fortunately, they are illegal). There are Free (as in freedom) codecs for these formats and Trisquel ships them (a lot of them by default as far as I remember). VLC contains some. FFMPEG too. They are free softwares anyway (a concept that has, one more time, nothing to do with the patent law).
Notice that, by their very nature, software patents are infringed by virtually any piece of software. They only are harmful to innovation and should not exist.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios