Audacious - libmp3lame
in [Slackware]
|
From: Mike Jones on 8 Oct 2009 16:42 Responding to Manuel Reimer: > Mike Jones wrote: >> I can't play mp3s in Audacious ATM. Oops! > > Doesn't the Audacious, which comes with Slackware 12.2, use libmad to > decode MP3? > > CU > > Manuel Just checked, and I have this. Just in case, I dropped symlinks across from /usr/lib/libmad.so.* to /lib/libmad.so.* Still the same hiss though. However...! Only on SOME mp3s! I can play any of them in Xine or MPlayer, but some just hiss in audacious. Clues anyone? -- *===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/ *===( http://www.slackware.com/
From: Dan C on 8 Oct 2009 17:38 On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:33:29 +0000, Mike Jones wrote: > Responding to Grant: > >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:04:48 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >> >> ... >>>Apropos 13, is it just me, or is the install noticably faster? >> >> Faster on my core2 boxes with lotsa memory (4GB c2duo, 6GB c2quad), >> seemed ordinary on the P4-HT box with only 1GB. >> >> I do NFS installs over a 100Mbps localnet link. >> >> Grant. > > > Lets just rewind and enjoy a moment of nostalgia here, for the days when > this would have seemed beyond bragging... "with only 1GB" > > It wasn't so long ago I was running my old P90 with 640Mb of EDO RAM, > and waxing nostalgic about "when there was only 64Kb". > > My backup Athlon 800 is souped up with about 700+ Mb RAM and a 40Gb HDD. > > Ah, the good old days... ;) Indeed. I remember running a Fidonet/PCBoard BBS on a 386/25 (under MSDOS) with 4Mb (yes, that's FOUR MEGABYTES) of RAM. Ran like a dream. I miss those days, probably the peak of computing excitement as far as I'm concerned. -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: Grant on 8 Oct 2009 18:02 On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:33:29 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >Responding to Grant: > >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:04:48 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >> >> ... >>>Apropos 13, is it just me, or is the install noticably faster? >> >> Faster on my core2 boxes with lotsa memory (4GB c2duo, 6GB c2quad), >> seemed ordinary on the P4-HT box with only 1GB. >> >> I do NFS installs over a 100Mbps localnet link. >> >> Grant. > > >Lets just rewind and enjoy a moment of nostalgia here, for the days when >this would have seemed beyond bragging... "with only 1GB" > >It wasn't so long ago I was running my old P90 with 640Mb of EDO RAM, and >waxing nostalgic about "when there was only 64Kb". > >My backup Athlon 800 is souped up with about 700+ Mb RAM and a 40Gb HDD. > >Ah, the good old days... ;) I remember first boot of os/2 on a '386 with 4MB (early '90s), had to go soend another $400 on an extra 4MB memory -- already spent $5700 for the PC and a dot matrix printer :( A decade or more earlier it was cp/m where the 8" floppy drives were ~$800 each, and the machine had all of 64kB memory (z80 at 4MHz, Ferguson Big Board II kit). I drift... Grant. -- http://bugsplatter.id.au
From: Ron Gibson on 8 Oct 2009 19:33 On 08 Oct 2009 21:38:48 GMT, Dan C <youmustbejoking(a)lan.invalid> wrote: >Indeed. I remember running a Fidonet/PCBoard BBS on a 386/25 (under >MSDOS) with 4Mb (yes, that's FOUR MEGABYTES) of RAM. Ran like a dream. >I miss those days, probably the peak of computing excitement as far as >I'm concerned. Shoot AutoCad/DOS used to run great with 16MB RAM on a 486 DX2/66 for me. BTW, back then in the days of W3.1 OS/2 was a far better OS. Linux was just getting started when OS/2 2.1 was around. By the time Warp 3 came out Linux was mature enough to do almost all the tasks I needed to do. Lets don't forget Doom :-) -- Email - rsgibson(a)tampabay.rr.borg Replace borg with com "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
From: Michael Black on 8 Oct 2009 20:44
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dan C wrote: > Indeed. I remember running a Fidonet/PCBoard BBS on a 386/25 (under > MSDOS) with 4Mb (yes, that's FOUR MEGABYTES) of RAM. Ran like a dream. > I miss those days, probably the peak of computing excitement as far as > I'm concerned. > That's nothing. You haven't live unless you had a computer with 1k of RAM or less, and no terminal. You either had to use toggle switches or if you were lucky like me, a calculator like keypad and 7 segment readouts. You had the choice of writing your own programs (machine code only, hand assemblying since there was not enough space for an assembler) or typing in other people's programs. That was thirty years ago this past April. I wanted my own computer forty years ago, I honestly can't remember how I thought I could accomplish that, and I had to wait till 1979 for prices to drop. I didn't get a floppy drive till 1984, and a hard drive till the end of 1993, all 80megs of it. On the other hand, I did run Microware OS-9 starting in 1984, one reason I bought that floppy drive ($500 for the drive, its power supply and a controller, and the floppies were a box of ten for fifty dollars), which was multi-tasking and potentiall multi-user, and "unix-like". It was great fun to load that system down, and then use the text editor; you could see the cursor moving around the page, and the pages refreshing. That will separate the rest from the Sidneys. Michael |