• Album@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    200
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    8 months ago

    Damn Lemmy users are no different from Reddit. Don’t read anything. Take anything you did read out of context. Be sure to rage post your own ignorance so we can all read about it.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        114
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        There are a bunch of free channels on the internet that some TVs can just stream without a dedicated app. These channels are supported by ads like cable/whatever channels, but not locked behind a subscription. VLC is supporting whatever formats they use to allow (or make it easier; IDK) people to watch them if they want.

        The other part is that they’re working on web assembly to allow sites to use VLC as their embedded video player.

        • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m so conflicted about web assembly. I’m a web developer and I think it’s going to be amazing eventually but 20% of me thinks it’s going to be a security nightmare and require a decade of fuck ups to reach its potential.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’m mostly worried about how much less open this will make the web for simple local hacking. I often add small features to webapps I use by injecting code and hooking into their systems (when it’s not an app with open source, where I send a PR instead - and if I can work around issues I do contact the owners with a working fix).

            This will be much harder with WebAssembly. Sure, there’ll be decompilers in time - but in the time it takes me to change a small piece of behaviour in such cases, I can add multiple features in the current JS environment, even if the code is obfuscated.

            • aluminium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I’m more concerned that the web will get even slower and bloated. We are already seeing the first frameworks that ship a webassembly .NET runtime, Python runtime, JVM, … . I kinda fear that in 10 years when you visit a site you need to download runtime xyz in version abc for the 1000th time. All because some people or companies just can not be bothered to learn any new technology.

          • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            require a decade of fuck ups to reach its potential.

            That’s quicker than people, heck I’m going on my 3rd decade and still not at my potential. Or so I like to tell myself.

          • ares35@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            you don’t even need a player script; browsers today can play media on their own.

            and scripts with added features is a very crowded market.

      • Shin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        He shouldn’t have to, the point is read before commenting about a clickbait headline. If he has to spell it out that only furthers his point.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, he has no responsibility to explain it. But if he would like to help anyways, he could.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Damn Lemmy users are no different from Reddit

      We’re do you think Lemmy got all its users?

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      You forgot to mention it’s no different from Reddit with the horrible titles either.

    • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah sure it’s user fault and not the click bait headline, I’m sure they can describe the whole article in one headline without any confusion, oh and probably half of lemmy user are used to be redditers

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      What are you even talking about? Do you feel better after getting that off your chest?

  • requiem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Slightly wondering whether this is a roundabout way of creating Ad-Free YouTube playback capabilities. “Hey community, we are adding support for ad enabled streams. Would be a shame if you hated that so much you wrote some ad blocking plugins.”

  • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is bad news. FAST streaming is an ad-riddled nightmare. VLC already supports streaming video just fine. Native support for FAST services just means native support for ads.

    VLC already includes support for IPTV streams and M3Us. If you want to load FAST channels, you can do that now using a playlist from here: https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv

    You’ll even get an ad-free / ad-reduced experience this way. FAST providers like Pluto and Tubi rebroadcast some TV channels and inject their own targeted ads. If you pipe the video stream into VLC, you’ll just see “commercial break in progress” filler video instead of commercials. Try it out with a local news station, they are all almost completely add free this way.

    Enjoy this while you can, I guess…

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean it’s just another format they’ll be supporting. If you don’t want to watch in that format, don’t.

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        FAST isn’t a format, it’s an integration. The format is streaming mpeg like everything else.

        If FAST services want to be a part of VLC, they can just write their own extension.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I mean it’s just another service they’ll be supporting. If you don’t want to watch that service, don’t.

          Better?

          • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            No, I don’t want any pro-profit ad-supported services integrated directly into a critical FOSS project like VideoLAN. This is a form of enshittification. VLC should NEVER implement native support for targeted advertising. Pluto and Tubi are already cramming ads into my smart TV, they need to stay the fuck away from VLC’s core code.

            Freedom of choice is writing a channel service extension for VLC that I can install if I want to, not integrating non-free anti-consumer bullshit into the application itself.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              I really don’t see how this is enshittification or anti-consumer. Nothing about your use of or experience of VLC changes if you simply don’t use FAST streams. To me this seems similar to whether or not to ship patent encumbered codecs.

              • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                What if Disney wanted to integrate their own DRM support into the Linux Kernel so you could watch Disney Blu-Ray movies? Would you accept the “you don’t have to watch Disney movies” justification?

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I’d be fine with VLC having a way to watch proprietary Blu-Rays. I think it has that feature and it does seem useful for those who want to watch Disney Blu-Rays. VLC is supposed to be pretty much a swiss army knife of media players, after all.

                  If you wanted to compare to the kernel then best comparison would be to something like proprietary drivers or something.

  • Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yay VLC!
    From the tail end of the short, and easy to read article: If you want an early look at the upcoming changes with VLC 4.0, you can download (https://nightlies.videolan.org/?ref=news.itsfoss.com) the latest nightly release from the official website or the latest “Edge” build from the Snap store (https://snapcraft.io/vlc?ref=news.itsfoss.com). VLC 4.0 (Early Build) (Snap Store) (https://snapcraft.io/vlc?ref=news.itsfoss.com)

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      They have an Ubuntu PPA which I used through distrobox. The weirdest way to get an app on the system, while there is a flatpak they dont seem interested in adopting it.

  • darganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Some of the new stuff looks cool, and for all of these knee-jerk reactionaries… optional.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Didn’t it already have that for years? Sounds like they’re ‘just’ adding support for signing in/ads

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’d rather be able to stream a file from my PC via VLC to other people with VLC.

    If that’s already a thing, then I guess I just gotta figure it out…

      • Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, I know about RTPM, but what I meant was more akin to streaming the file itself.

        Take for example, me and my friends want to watch a movie. One of us has the movie. We all have VLC. The one with the movie loads the file, the others… Somehow… Connect to the VLC with the loaded file and have it directly stream to their own VLC.

        • doublenom@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I dig a little and there is an option on the GUI to easily stream. On the media menu, there is a stream option (CTRL+S) which allows you to stream a file using the interface you want. It will create a server and it’s up to you to make that server available to your friends (port forwarding). They will the open your video from a network interface link.

          Though, while I did manage to stream between two instances of VLC on the same machine. It was after many attempts and I did not have any sound.

          Not incredible, I will admit, but I’m quite confident it can work well once you understand what parameters to use.

  • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    I swore this was already a feature. I remember years ago (15+) I was able to play YouTube videos on it.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      The new feature is for FAST, which is a type of IPTV stream. Imagine something akin to a TV channel guide, like Samsung’s and Roku’s built in streams.

      And the “ad supported” bit is misleading; The channels are supported by ads, and run them as part of their programming. It’s not VLC showing ads before you’re allowed to stream the video, like YouTube. Just like regular TV channels, where they have commercial breaks.

  • dutchkimble@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Remember those Winamp channels? Hope this leads into that. IPTV is supported by Winamp but not the easiest way to use it, maybe this would make that better too.

    Edit - sorry I meant IPTV is supported by VLC*

    • hakobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I loved the Winamp channels. That’s where I learned about the existence of anime. I had no concept that things like Cardcaptors, Dragonball, Pokemon, etc were actually anime because I just saw them in English. But I found dubs through Winamp streaming and it sent me down the rabbit hole to buying DVDs and manga and learning to torrent fansubs. The good old days of my blazing fast 3mbps cable connection. It blew my mind coming from dial up.

  • Blizzard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    8 months ago

    plans to support ad-supported online media streams

    Why are they saying it like it’s something good and exciting?

    rewriting the whole core of VLC for the 4.0 release which will see a new interface

    Where have we see it before? It’s basically the classic scenario where popular software/service makes a complete chnage of design nobody asked for and it fails miserably. I recommend everyone to make a backup of the installer of the last version before this release…

    • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I really don’t see the what the fuss is in this thread. The source does make it seem a bit nefarious, but even so, it appears the changes in VLC amount to adding support for a streaming format and adding a channel listing of some sort.

      FAST is simply a streaming format. Whether to run ads is an individual decision of each channel.

      If I can have a streaming client that can play certain streams versus one that can’t, I’ll obviously pick the former. (Unless they employ a DRM scheme which does weird things to my devices but it doesn’t appear that’s part of the discussion here.)

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yep, here’s the section

        When he was talking about that, he also shared that they plan to add support for FAST channels and other kinds of ad-supported online media streams that would allow users to watch ad-supported movies, TV shows, and more.

        However, he also clarified that plans for this were not finalized yet, and if it were to happen, it would be optional for VLC users.

        .

        It does when you consider that there are over 1,500 FAST channels in the US alone, plus countless others around the globe, with the number still growing.

        They already support other forms of streams, why not this. It would be weirder if they chose to not support it

      • eveninghere@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, I think evil bastard streaming services choosing open source (VLC) is rather a win for the society.

      • kratoz29@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m surprised they’re not also trying to become more like plex/jellyfin then pivot to ad supported streaming

        Well, not people are driven by money, but I do agree that several costs need to be addressed, and sadly ads are one of the means to achieve this (and more depending on your greed).

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      They dont display ads, the channels send video streams that have embedded ads for money purpose things (whoever buys shit because of ads)