Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Announcing the Were Linux video contest finalists
The Linux Foundation recently
announced the winners of the Were Linux video contest.
"The journey that begin during last football season with the realization that Microsoft paid Jerry Seinfeld $10 million for his appearance in their ads is almost over. The judging for the Were Linux video contest has been completed and Im pleased to announce the finalists.
These videos reflect the best of what was truly a global community effort with videos being submitted from Asia, Europe, North America, the Middle East and South America.
The response exceeded all of our expectations: frankly I was worried wed get 20 entries, but we ended up getting over 90. We would like to thank all of the community members who took the time to submit videos. Many were smart, many were funny, all were creative." The videos themselves can be found on this page.
(Log in to post comments)
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 10, 2009 1:49 UTC (Fri) by mhw (guest, #13931) [Link]
This post uses non-standard characters for the quotation marks and
apostrophies which don't render properly on most web browsers (lynx, links, w3m, and dillo, at least). The link to the article doesn't work on those browsers either.
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 10, 2009 3:15 UTC (Fri) by hchristeller (guest, #4246) [Link]
The character set is declared as UTF-8, and the characters in question are included in that set. They also look fine in w3m for me. Perhaps your computer is not configured to correctly handle Unicode?
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 10, 2009 9:54 UTC (Fri) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622) [Link]
I also see problems with the quotation marks in an en_GB.UTF-8 locale
running konqueror under KDE4. The page displays correctly, but the title in the tab has the "missing UCS character" square symbols, while the title bar has the quotation marks missing entirely. The URL to the original article also has the same "square" characters in it.
Looking at the link from the frontpage of www.linuxfoundation.org, this has
Regards,
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 10, 2009 9:57 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
The article linked is in UTF-8, but this LWN post claims to be ISO-8859-1 which doesn't have these characters. On the other hand it's a widely accepted convention that Windows codepage 1252, which is almost a strict superset of 8859-1 is meant when the character set is claimed to be ISO-8859-1 on the web, and these characters /are/ in cp1252.
So widely that it's not actually possible (as far as I can tell) to force my ordinary copy of Firefox to actually take them seriously and complain about the illegal non-characters in this page that claims to be ISO-8859-1, it always silently treats it as cp1252.
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 10, 2009 15:13 UTC (Fri) by mhw (guest, #13931) [Link] My system, Debian lenny, is configured properly, and correctly renders all the scripts on Wikipedia's front page for which I have fonts. This LWN post declares the character set to be ISO-8859-1 in both the HTTP headers and the HTML source. The troublesome code points used in this post (0x92-0x94) are not defined in either ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8. LWN has always been exemplary in its compliance to web standards. I hope it continues to do so.
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 10, 2009 17:01 UTC (Fri) by hchristeller (guest, #4246) [Link]
My mistake; I was looking at the Linux Foundation page, rather than the LWN page. Yes, quoting a page using one encoding on a page using a different encoding is a problem.
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 11, 2009 6:14 UTC (Sat) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link]
That's a recurrent problem with LWN: the articles and summaries often contain Windows chararcters which don't render correctly in some tools (e.g. RSS readers). Maybe an iconv pass when accepting the post at the server is in order ?
Non-standard characters in this post Posted Apr 12, 2009 19:59 UTC (Sun) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link] The characters are most likely Windows-1252. In web pages, ISO-8859-1 has meant Windows-1252 for a very long time. This is now standardized in HTML 5, and browsers should probably fix themselves. On the other hand, lwn.net should probably use UTF-8 anyway, or at least real ISO-8859-1. It's not too hard to HTML-escape all the problem characters before publication, surely -- that would be the quickest fix. (Is the software lwn.net runs on open-source?)
Standard rant Posted Apr 10, 2009 3:42 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
Insert standard rant about Ogg, Flash, HTML5 <video> and so on.
Standard rant Posted Apr 10, 2009 18:40 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
That page they put out does not work out of the box on my system. They failed.
I'm too lazy right now to download those files, convert them to a friendlier format and upload them elsewhere (and then link to them with a <video> tag) but when someone does, it would be nice to know.
Standard rant Posted Apr 10, 2009 19:20 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Somebody will have to find a clever javascript hack so that when no flash is detected it throws up the video tag and so the browser starts playing that instead, or at least shows a download link for the video.
I know that the video tags with theora works fine on my Fedora 11 box with Firefox 3.1beta and the Gnome Epiphany. Other browsers that support it currently are experimental Opera builds and Safari with the theora plugin for quicktime.
To see how you fair:
Go video tags!
Standard rant Posted Apr 11, 2009 2:30 UTC (Sat) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] I was eventually able to download the youtube ones with clive:
clive http://youtube.com/?v={mwNQPairZEM,svaHnha-PXs,qWEIQIv8zvY,xceiMJSunIg,SwmfyeHBFlM}
The vimeo one wasn't downloadable even with a valid login from bugmenot. Apparently they will be posting the Ogg files at some point. I have another standard rant to insert: advertising free software using non-free software.
Survey please Posted Apr 11, 2009 12:52 UTC (Sat) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
Could we have a quick survey please of which Linux distributions can view these videos "out-of-the-box"? I was able to view them on my Debian system but only with the use of a firefox extension and a non-Debian mplayer, and lots of clicking. If even the Linux Foundation won't produce videos that typical Linux systems can view then we really can't expect anyone else to do so, can we?
Survey please Posted Apr 12, 2009 10:08 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
I'm using the latest Debian with no external packages other than the youtube-dl script from the internet.
vlc plays the videos just fine, but you have to cut out the youtube link from the page source. I hoping one day to find/write a script that will turn all youtube reference links in FF into something I can click to run it in vlc in a seperate window...
Announcing the Were Linux video contest finalists Posted Apr 10, 2009 7:36 UTC (Fri) by danieldk (guest, #27876) [Link]
Apparently there is already a winner:
http://twitter.com/linuxfoundation/status/1480263398 (Linux AD)
Personally, I liked "Linux Pub" and "Challenges At The Office" most. The winner is a bit dull and conventional.
Announcing the Were Linux video contest finalists Posted Apr 13, 2009 13:15 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
|
|||||||||||||