On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: > > still they managed to completely misrepresent it, the FAQ entry about 2.96 > > is a plain lie - in their favour of course. > Do you have the details on this one? I'd like to add a note on it on the > gcc 2.96 FUD-counter page.
Sure, check here for some first-rate FUD: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/faq.html Or do you want me to comment on the "mmx code skipping bug" - the symptoms, the cause, the fix, and who's guilty? > The problem with avifile is that (at least last time I checked), it > requires Win32 DLLs as codecs. mplayer and xine (http://xine.sf.net/) can > use ffmpeg (much nicer, since it's free). Mplayer still can't be included in distributions since it relies heavily on compile-time optimisation for the particular processor you have. It's not possible to make a universal binary unless you wish to omit all done-by-hand MMX/3DNOW/SSE assembly routines. > So far the only drawback I've seen when comparing mplayer to xine is that > xine can't play Video-CD rips (".bin files"), but that should be fixable. Well I tried xine long ago and it crashed like hell. I hope it has improved, because with mplayer I didn't have a single crash in 4 months (not that I did a thorough testing - I just play Windows Media with it). And yes I used gcc 2.96-RH to compile mplayer. -- Alexander Homepage: http://www.sensi.org/~ak/ _______________________________________________ Redhat-devel-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
