# Audacity and MP3



## desertwind (Jul 26, 2005)

I am using audacity for recording and editing audio files. I can export the files in ogg mp3 and wav formats, but my problem is that i cant import mp3 files for editing. Its shows an eroor message *This version of Audacity was not compiled with MP3 supoprt*. Is there any way for adding mp3 support into audacity ?

I'm using FC4, Audacity 1.2.3 and LAME 3.96


----------



## sba (Jul 26, 2005)

Did you compile Audacity yourself? If yes then probably at the time of compilation you did not have MP3 libraries installed and Audacity got compiled without MP3 support?


----------



## desertwind (Jul 26, 2005)

i didnt compliled it from source. instead i installed it using the rpm package


----------



## ujjwal (Jul 26, 2005)

Well you can either use a different RPM, that was compiled with MP3 support, or you can download the source code and recompile it yourself. If you follow the latter, after unpacking the source tarball, run a "./configure --help | less" in the source directory, note down the option which controls mp3 support, and give the configure command with the option enabled, for example "./configure --enable-mp3" or something like that.

However, I am pretty sure an RPM which is compiled with MP3 support is available, check the official audacity site


----------



## desertwind (Jul 27, 2005)

well, i used the officially available one. hmm... now i have to download that source once again


----------



## sba (Jul 27, 2005)

Most probably Fedora is following the stupid practice of not compiling the MP3 support in its packages. Try compiling from source. Lets see how it goes from there.


----------



## gauravnawani (Jul 27, 2005)

sba said:
			
		

> Most probably Fedora is following the stupid practice of not compiling the MP3 support in its packages. Try compiling from source. Lets see how it goes from there.



Having no mp3 support is not stupid in any sense of way. Always remember that mp3 is an liscensed technology. And Redhat never puts any closed source liscensed products. Unless they make busisness sense.

Any way why bother with mp3s when there is "better quality" and higher compression for music with "OGG" and its is OSS too. Thos who still use windows, Winamp is perfectly capable of playing ogg files.

No mp3 support is not end of the line.

PS: My copy FC4 and audacity works with mp3 also.


----------



## desertwind (Jul 27, 2005)

I know ogg is always better than MP3. It offers better quality and lesser filesize. but for editing MP3 and converting it into ogg, i need MP3 import capability in audacity.

And i absolutely support gauravnawami.


> Having no mp3 support is not stupid in any sense of way


----------



## sba (Jul 27, 2005)

gauravnawani said:
			
		

> And Redhat never puts any closed source liscensed products.


...and that makes them smart?
They are just using their Fedora users like Guinea Pigs. They give them half cooked distro with bugs. Users suffer and then they inject the rock solid stuff in their Enterprise Suites. It has been said and I would like to repeat it..."Redhat is Microsoft for Linux". They just want to think about themselves and their business..users can just take a hike. Just b'cos they are popular doesn't make them smart or their trade practices smart.

Ok you don't require MP3 but then what about Java, Flash, Real/Quicktimes Plugins, NVIDIA Drivers??? We need these stuff to survive in a closed source dominated market. You just can't shut yourself out and think that I am in Open Source heaven. I am also a great fan of OSS but you need closed source stuff until we slowly replace them with their alternatives.


----------



## desertwind (Jul 27, 2005)

sba said:
			
		

> They are just using their Fedora users like Guinea Pigs. They give them half cooked distro with bugs. Users suffer and then they inject the rock solid stuff in their Enterprise Suites. It has been said and I would like to repeat it..."Redhat is Microsoft for Linux". They just want to think about themselves and their business..users can just take a hike. Just b'cos they are popular doesn't make them smart or their trade practices smart.


Fedora is a redhat sponsored project, not *by* Redhat. In the website they clearly states that it is a testing ground for RH Products.


> The Fedora Project is an open source project sponsored by Red Hat and supported by the Fedora community. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.





			
				sba said:
			
		

> Ok you don't require MP3 but then what about Java, Flash, Real/Quicktimes Plugins, NVIDIA Drivers??? We need these stuff to survive in a closed source dominated market. You just can't shut yourself out and think that I am in Open Source heaven. I am also a great fan of OSS but you need closed source stuff until we slowly replace them with their alternatives.



We've already got alternatives for Java and Flash Plugins. and many people are working on others. NVIDIA Drivers should be provided by NVIDIA itself, not by redhat.

If you are interested, GPLFlash is an alternative for Macromedia Flash Player and Plugin
*gplflash.sourceforge.net/

And here's GNU Java Compiler, A free(dom) alternative for Java Compilers
*gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html

GNU Classpath, Essential Libraries for Java, is a GNU project to create free core class libraries for use with virtual machines and compilers for the java programming language.
*www.gnu.org/software/classpath/

And if you want to know why you want to use GCJ, read here
*www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

i doesnt need mp3 support for my computer. I've been using ogg for storing my favourite songs for years. But what i need is an *mp3 import plugin for audacity* so that i can import mp3 files, edit it, and export in ogg format(not in mp3 format).


----------



## sba (Jul 28, 2005)

desertwind said:
			
		

> Fedora is a redhat sponsored project, not *by* Redhat. In the website they clearly states that it is a testing ground for RH Products.


Yes, keep believing in everything you read. They control the whole developement process my dear. Remember the release of XFree86 4.0 and how Redhat were the first ones to call for group of new developers? Remember how they tested it in Fedora and only then they infused the finished product in Enterprise edition? Why was the announcement not made first of all in Fedora mailing list?


> We've already got alternatives for Java and Flash Plugins. and many people are working on others. NVIDIA Drivers should be provided by NVIDIA itself, not by redhat.


...and you are telling me that you are using GPLFlash and GNU Java plugins in your browser? Get real my friend...we need these closed source stuff. I am not saying that we need to depend on them forever but we need them now. When we have alternates we can get them in main stream but if we don't give finished products to the users we will just scare the hell out of new users. I will give you an example to this thing. Till date we are facing problems with NTFS write support but there was a project named "Captive" which was providing NTFS write support by using core XP libraries. What happened to it? It died. Why? Cos of this same attitude about closed source stuff and sadly we don't have a rock solid alternative till now!!! NTFS write support is still in nascent stages and don't know till when it will be there. So imho we shouldn't just trash away the closed source stuff. Use them to fight them...


----------



## gauravnawani (Jul 28, 2005)

> Yes, keep believing in everything you read. They control the whole development process my dear. Remember the release of XFree86 4.0 and how Redhat were the first ones to call for group of new developers? Remember how they tested it in Fedora and only then they infused the finished product in Enterprise edition? Why was the announcement not made first of all in Fedora mailing list?


This is funny, you accuse us in believing what we read, and what about you?? you obviously read it somewhere that evil Redhat controls the evil fedora. rofl 

Aren't you going overboard with the assumption of Redhat being equated to Microsoft, whats next, will you eat SUSE to as they are also not providing mp3 and other multimedia support in their recent 9.3 release??

Redhat on the other hand does a good job of providing a very neat stable and cutting edge package of softwares, which is very usable for an "average" desktop user, read again "average desktop user". This gives them opportunity to experiment with new stuff for RHEL but at the same time Fedora being free benefits many. 

NVIDIA
The fact that you don't get drivers of a closed source product is actually stupid, as *desertwind* rightly points out the responsibility of drivers squarely lies with the hardware manufacturer not the OSS people who work their butt out to produce an safe and working drivers only to be lamented by people like yourself.

JAVA
Sun provides Java for Linux, since you buy digit you some times get the Linux version too. If downloading it not your cup of tea request them.

FLASH
Macromedia duly supports Linux.
Direct installation 
*www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?
P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&P2_Platform=Linux&P3_Browser_Version=Netscape4

EDITED: the above link has be cut into two lines.

Rpms
*sluglug.ucsc.edu/macromedia/site_ucsc.html

REAL
Real time player is there in Linux with direct support from, "Real" in the form of helix player.

Quick time is not supported, but you just have to download either of mplayer or xine with appropriate codecs. It will work on more formats winblows ever knows.

NTFS
The fact is people chose to blast OSS just because it doesn't serves their own little needs, in this case you talk heavily about NTFS. I personally never felt any need of it so why should I bother, obviously I should not and  see "trusty old Microsoft" don't cares about it either. But hey you are really angry over it. 

If you have good programming skills why not try decoding the "closed source NTFS" format. So that many needy people like you can benefit from it and thank you for it too. It only takes a person who really wants to get the things done. Obviously there aren't many Linux developers, feeling the need for NTFS, otherwise despite the fact that it being completely closed source they would have developed proper support it. 

Being in OSS domain you still have choice of hundreds of other distros to chose from, pick any other if you have not already.


----------



## sba (Jul 28, 2005)

gauravnawani said:
			
		

> This is funny, you accuse us in believing what we read, and what about you?? you obviously read it somewhere that evil Redhat controls the evil fedora. rofl


Do you ever read the mailing list of your own distro? When XFree86 moved to their new license Redhat were the first ones to call for developers to form a new group to develop a new X server but then why was Fedora the first one to start testing Xorg? B'cos Redhat wanted it to. This is simple business man...you control what you pay for. What is it that you don't understand?


> ...will you eat SUSE to as they are also not providing mp3 and other multimedia support in their recent 9.3 release??


What are you talking about? Go home and update your system. That green update applet would be flashing in your face. Check that...you have packages for everything. Yes MP3 too...surprise...surprise...
Support and out-of-the-box are two different things. Wake up!!!


> NVIDIA
> The fact that you don't get drivers of a closed source product is actually stupid, as *desertwind* rightly points out the responsibility of drivers squarely lies with the hardware manufacturer not the OSS people who work their butt out to produce an safe and working drivers only to be lamented by people like yourself.


Where am I saying that drivers should not be provided by manufacturers...where am I saying that you should not install closed source stuff. I am saying that you CAN'T stay away from closed source stuff. We need them...


> JAVA...
> FLASH...
> REAL...


Your point being...?


> NTFS
> The fact is people chose to blast OSS just because it doesn't serves their own little needs, in this case you talk heavily about NTFS. I personally never felt any need of it so why should I bother, obviously I should not and  see "trusty old Microsoft" don't cares about it either. But hey you are really angry over it.


Own little needs? If you are talking about supporting 95% of desktop users out there with a Microsoft OS on their system as my own little need then I pity you man. If it is such a trivial thing then why don't you post in a kernel mailing list and tell them that they should disable the NTFS branch from 2.6 kernel. I am sure they would love to hear you.


> Being in OSS domain you still have choice of hundreds of other distros to chose from, pick any other if you have not already.


Did I say I am not using any other distro? I am using Slackware 10.1 and Gentoo...thank you very much. Oh and btw...Slackware and Gentoo "support" MP3 cos they are not "stupid".


----------



## gauravnawani (Jul 28, 2005)

sba said:
			
		

> Do you ever read the mailing list of your own distro? When XFree86 moved to their new license Redhat were the first ones to call for developers to form a new group to develop a new X server but then why was Fedora the first one to start testing Xorg? B'cos Redhat wanted it to. This is simple business man...you control what you pay for. What is it that you don't understand?


I read more about my distro then.. lets say you!. Whats that!! a stupid joke?? XFree86 made a change that made it non compatible to GPL. A company like Redhat which only provides GPL products this was automatically not acceptable. I see that you have trouble yourself understanding what you want to say.  Your words say that redhat controls/or intends it is thats so??  *www.x.org/XOrg_background.html



			
				sba said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? Go home and update your system. That green update applet would be flashing in your face. Check that...you have packages for everything. Yes MP3 too...surprise...surprise...
> Support and out-of-the-box are two different things. Wake up!!!


For your kind information I use fedora4. And I am quite content not to wake up as, I know the difference between updating and using a release.



			
				sba said:
			
		

> Where am I saying that drivers should not be provided by manufacturers...where am I saying that you should not install closed source stuff. I am saying that you CAN'T stay away from closed source stuff. We need them...


You have them in they way you can, that is separate download. Whats so difficult about 'GPL compliant' that you dont understand?



			
				sba said:
			
		

> Own little needs? If you are talking about supporting 95% of desktop users out there with a Microsoft OS on their system as my own little need then I pity you man. If it is such a trivial thing then why don't you post in a kernel mailing list and tell them that they should disable the NTFS branch from 2.6 kernel. I am sure they would love to hear you.


Once again your facts are wrong 100% windows users dont have NTFS. Thanks but no thanks for your pity I had done without and will continue to do so. I was not even bothered about it not existing it makse no difference to me whether it does or not. It was you who was crying horse over NTFS.



			
				sba said:
			
		

> Did I say I am not using any other distro? I am using Slackware 10.1 and Gentoo...thank you very much. Oh and btw...Slackware and Gentoo "support" MP3 cos they are not "stupid".





			
				gauravnawani said:
			
		

> .. distros to chose from, pick any other if you have not already.


Obviously you have problems with reading complete paragraphs. I hope theirs and your intelligence dont mix up together.


----------



## sba (Jul 28, 2005)

gauravnawani said:
			
		

> I read more about my distro then.. lets say you!. Whats that!! a stupid joke?? XFree86 made a change that made it non compatible to GPL. A company like Redhat which only provides GPL products this was automatically not acceptable. I see that you have trouble yourself understanding what you want to say.  Your words say that redhat controls/or intends it is thats so??


Are you so thick headed or are you just pretending to be? I agree that they release GPL stuff but why was Fedora the first ones used as testing grounds? Why not Redhat's "own" distro? Why does everything experimental goes into Fedora which Redhat wants...b'cos Redhat gives monetary and intellectual support to the project and controls the way it shapes up? Simple business imho. If you can't even see the picture now then there is no use arguing with you.


> For your kind information I use fedora4. And I am quite content not to wake up as, I know the difference between updating and using a release.


What??? You never laid your hands on SuSE 9.3 and you were blowing your trumpet about it missing MP3 support? Now that is intelligent...


> You have them in they way you can, that is separate download. Whats so difficult about 'GPL compliant' that you dont understand?


What is the requirement of a user you don't understand? If dumping non-GPL stuff was such a nice (read 'smart') thing then why are all major distros not implementing it? Why this politics by Redhat?


> Once again your facts are wrong 100% windows users dont have NTFS. Thanks but no thanks for your pity I had done without and will continue to do so. I was not even bothered about it not existing it makse no difference to me whether it does or not. It was you who was crying horse over NTFS.


Lets see who is an isolated case here. Make a poll in any part of this world on any website you like and just ask this one question. "Would you like to have rock-solid NTFS full write support in Linux?" You will find what an endangered species you are and will give me written permission to pity on you  


> Obviously you have problems with reading complete paragraphs. I hope theirs and your intelligence dont mix up together.


Looks like your level of intelligence has already mixed with that of people at Fedora


----------



## gauravnawani (Jul 29, 2005)

sba said:
			
		

> Are you so thick headed or are you just pretending to be? I agree that they release GPL stuff but why was Fedora the first ones used as testing grounds? Why not Redhat's "own" distro? Why does everything experimental goes into Fedora which Redhat wants...b'cos Redhat gives monetary and intellectual support to the project and controls the way it shapes up? Simple business imho. If you can't even see the picture now then there is no use arguing with you.


All I can see is your half baked misunderstanding and misionary zeal against their methods. As you said there is no point in arguing with me after all how can you argue facts with mad barking.



			
				sba said:
			
		

> What??? You never laid your hands on SuSE 9.3 and you were blowing your trumpet about it missing MP3 support? Now that is intelligent...


Again adding imagination "Jack boy". I use Fedora for work and play with other distros too, thats how I speak about what I know.



			
				sba said:
			
		

> What is the requirement of a user you don't understand? If dumping non-GPL stuff was such a nice (read 'smart') thing then why are all major distros not implementing it? Why this politics by Redhat?


Right on Jack boy, tell me if this rings any bells in your pea brain. There are few if no distro which directly aims at desktop. Read directly otherwise you will be mixing words. Mostly GPL products are distributed in an fully GPL distro. Since commercial companies dont make GPL stuff they are left out even if they are easing some aspects of desktop computing. But those who work with GPL like RealNetworks they are included. Even then they are far and few. 

Try to understand the difference between the spirit of GPL, and and average Jack wanting "things". 



			
				sba said:
			
		

> Lets see who is an isolated case here. Make a poll in any part of this world on any website you like and just ask this one question. "Would you like to have rock-solid NTFS full write support in Linux?" You will find what an endangered species you are and will give me written permission to pity on you


See again you are so hot headed about it, why dont you do it yourself. If you forgot to read earlier comments, I dont care about NTFS.



			
				sba said:
			
		

> Looks like your level of intelligence has already mixed with that of people at Fedora


Agreed thats why they are the best GPLed distro out there. See that was easy dosent it!

One more thing if you really want to continue talk more give me facts, not your overflowing emotions. Othewise I wont be replying this thread anymore.


----------



## sba (Jul 29, 2005)

gauravnawani said:
			
		

> All I can see is your half baked misunderstanding and misionary zeal against their methods. As you said there is no point in arguing with me after all how can you argue facts with *mad barking.
> Jack boy...pea brain*...


Since you have come down to using derogatory remarks rather than keeping the argument clean, this topic is more than over for me. I will not be visiting this thread again but still the onus of proving that my posts were not half baked misunderstanding or mad barking for that matter, lies on me. All I can see is that this whole topic started when I said that Redhat controls Fedora and Redhat's policies are stupid. Well you think they are not stupid and I think they are, so there can be no clarification or justification to that thing but in this last post of mine I will prove to you that *at the time of writing this post, Fedora is controlled by Redhat*.


> *Red Hat Lets Go of Fedora* (Dated: June 13, 2005)
> 
> Linux vendor Red Hat Inc. has turned over control of the open-source Fedora Project, which the Raleigh, N.C., company currently sponsors and controls, to the newly established Fedora Foundation.
> 
> ...





> But not everyone is convinced that Red Hat is willing to cede control of Fedora. A developer at the Redhat summit, who asked not to be named, said he is concerned that the Fedora Foundation could end up like Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Java Community Process, with Red Hat remaining firmly in control.


Source: eWeek
The above quoted announcement came in Redhat Summit, 2005 Day 3 on June 3, 2005. 


> Mark Webbink, deputy general counsel for Red Hat, announced in his keynote address this morning at the Red Hat Summit that *Red Hat is freeing the Fedora project from its direct control.*


Source: NewsForge
Now I don't know how something can be set free until it was actually under control of someone.
You might say that the announcement came on June 3, 2005 and since Fedora 4 was released on June 6, 2005 thus it is not being controlled by Redhat anymore but you must know that the proposed Fedora Foundation will come in existence only in *August*.


> The foundation is expected to be set up by mid-August and will operate as a nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization, said Mark Webbink, deputy general counsel at Red Hat. "It will be governed by an independent board that we don't control," he said.


Source: Computerworld

Thanx for reading.


----------



## gauravnawani (Jul 29, 2005)

Hmm speaking of deragotory remarks 'sba' they were your offering to begin with. I see I might have got a bit overboard with 'mad barking' but else everything is pun exchanged during the heat, if you are not sure re-read your posts.

Do you think most people dont know that Fedora is Redhat's baby? I think not. And to this point you yourself have created confusion between your diskile of Fedora project, Redhats policy, its so called control and the missing features that make a distribution stupid, all without giving proper facts or pointers. If possible re-read your threads and think calmly  . 

Thanks for taking time this might come in handy to a person who dosent knows about Fedora project (excluding me).

PS: No pun intended but you seem to miss what you think and what you write.


----------

