Multimedia framework

Jason Wood jasonwood at
Thu Oct 24 20:23:27 BST 2002

On Thursday 24 Oct 2002 8:04 pm, Neil Stevens wrote:
> On Thursday October 24, 2002 11:12, George Staikos wrote:
> >    This is what I was afraid of.  Using such approaches is just not
> > suitable to all applications, though I do see a benefit in terms of
> > things like using more polished apps to do end-to-end playing of video
> > files/dvds.  I can't see how this could be very useful for a realtime
> > video editor, for instance.
> Well, until someone steps up and adds more to aRts, nothing will get done.
> It doesn't matter if 200 people file wishlists about what they say they
> can't do with aRts, it doesn't matter what video apps people want.  Unless
> someone codes the wnated features, or pays someone to do it, we're stuck
> with what we've got until KDE 4 when we break BC.

I do agree.

However, I have to ask the question at this point: if GStreamer is already on 
the right track to a multimedia architecture that can provide everything that 
everyone wants (I still haven't looked into GStreamer & aRts enough to see if 
this is the case), then why bother putting in all of the manhours to add 
video support properly to aRts, when we can essentially just patch aRts up 
with a short term video solution and consider GStreamer as the long-term 
solution for KDE?

At the end of the day, if I have the choice to spend the next year writing a 
video framework into aRts, or wait 9 months for GStreamer to mature and then 
spend three weeks updating the C++ wrappers around it, then I for one would 
prefer the time to work on other things :-)


Jason Wood
Homepage :

More information about the kde-multimedia mailing list