I dont know, sometimes I like to use newer software.. I guess last codecs will improve a litle bit video performance.. Ive seen recentlly BDRIP compilations have decrease size and keeping quality at the same time... a lot of movies under 1GB with 720p resolution.sunrat wrote:@bester69 - which media codec did you need that wasn't supported in the current Debian version?
I cant ensure if it improves, perhaps improves a litle bit movie latency response, when you scroll throught the movie. For me it's ok for now, I was having some issues with gnome-mpv and youtube videos , it doesnt play them sometimes, and i thought it was something about codecs. Still dont know whats the matter with youtube-dl and gnome-mpv, I even upgrade last youtube-dl version and keeps doing the same.bw123 wrote:You said you already got the stuff, so did it improve anything? Why do you need it to be backported to stable if you got it somewhere else? Are you now using stable, or still a 'mixed' system?
So Debian Stable system with:bester69 wrote:My stable system has:
Ubuntu's kernel 4.4.125 (I always use ubuntu's kernel)
firmware-intel-sound (bpo)
inte-microcode (bpo)
mpv, libav-* (deb-multimedia)
kodi 17.6 (Zesty ubuntu)
So it is not really Debian Stable, is it ?Ubuntu's kernel 4.4.125 (I always use ubuntu's kernel)
Why don't you give an url of a problem vid, and maybe somebody else can check it out? Which format are you getting through youtube-dl?bester69 wrote:
I cant ensure if it improves, perhaps improves a litle bit movie latency response, when you scroll throught the movie. For me it's ok for now, I was having some issues with gnome-mpv and youtube videos , it doesnt play them sometimes, and i thought it was something about codecs. Still dont know whats the matter with youtube-dl and gnome-mpv, I even upgrade last youtube-dl version and keeps doing the same.
Code: Select all
fmt_17 3GP 144p MPEG-4 Visual
fmt_36 3GP 240p MPEG-4 Visual
fmt_5 FLV 240p Sorenson H.263
fmt_18 MP4 360p H.264
fmt_22 MP4 720p H.264
fmt_43 WebM 360p VP8
Its debian system with ubuntu kernel, so in my opinion its a 95% debian system (there must be very litle differences between debian and ubuntu kernels).jibberjabber wrote:So it is not really Debian Stable, is it ?Ubuntu's kernel 4.4.125 (I always use ubuntu's kernel)
It is Ubuntu, Ubuntu is not Debian.
How can you be sure of that? Are you the maintainer of all those different package and do you know the ins and outs of them?bester69 wrote:I alway follow same criteria, I keep a stable base system, and then i use some third party esencial packages mixed, As they are very few, the stable base keeps under control.
You have created a bizaro-distro and you are the only one using it (no peer testing). I would say that Sid is much more reliable since there are hundreds of potents people using it.bester69 wrote: Its debian system with ubuntu kernel, so in my opinion its a 95% debian system (there must be very litle differences between debian and ubuntu kernels).
Ive been doing this for long and its wonderfull, but dont say to anyone..,they dont approve these practices
I read someplace ubuntu's kernel is the same as debian kernel with some tunning..Ive installed and testing a lot of ubuntu's kernels in debian and all of them worked fine, so in my own experience and for my purposes theyre totally compatible, at least in debian's direction. To me this is very good , cos i can go to kernel-ppa/mainline and install any kernel, and check performance in my system and pick the better one in my laptop.Funkygoby wrote:How can you be sure of that? Are you the maintainer of all those different package and do you know the ins and outs of them?bester69 wrote:I alway follow same criteria, I keep a stable base system, and then i use some third party esencial packages mixed, As they are very few, the stable base keeps under control.
You have created a bizaro-distro and you are the only one using it (no peer testing). I would say that Sid is much more reliable since there are hundreds of potents people using it.bester69 wrote: Its debian system with ubuntu kernel, so in my opinion its a 95% debian system (there must be very litle differences between debian and ubuntu kernels).
Ive been doing this for long and its wonderfull, but dont say to anyone..,they dont approve these practices
As a side note, have you considered that using incompatible parts might make your system less perfomant?
Anyway, cuídate.
I read a lot of things, it doesn't make them true. Got any objective benchmarks?bester69 wrote:I read someplace ubuntu's kernel is the same as debian kernel with some tunning..
A kernel is unlikely to break anything... until the DKMS packages you need to compile against it get out of sync, or you pull in a rare kernel that has userspace-breaking API changes. It's probably fine for a desktop, but on a machine that needs to work all the time (like a production server), it would be inviting disaster.bester69 wrote:Ive installed and testing a lot of ubuntu's kernels in debian and all of them worked fine, so in my own experience and for my purposes theyre totally compatible, at least in debian's direction.
If you want to micromanage a bunch of libraries that may break unexpectedly when things they link against get upgraded, fall behind, or don't exist in the debian packages, sure.bester69 wrote:As you should know some packages doesnt affect the base of the system, they are very bounded. You can install libavcodec from other distros, and it will only affect that part of the system, the dependcyies are very controlled, so your system keep being a debian Stable. Can you see the point?
But it's the "Debian kernel" with some fine-tuning. Who wouldn't want some of that? Ubuntu is 'effectively' Debian GTI, after all.steve_v wrote:I read a lot of things, it doesn't make them true. Got any objective benchmarks?bester69 wrote:I read someplace ubuntu's kernel is the same as debian kernel with some tunning..
Its very easy to rollback and drop those dbo packages when they are just a few ones, You only need to ask to aptitude what option to choose in order to downgrade back those packages. Ive never broken anything since years, so I again will defend there's nothong wrong with using some few foreign controlled packages in the stable debian, that wont change anything.wizard10000 wrote:I had a deb-multimedia library offer to break Sid more than a year after I installed it.steve_v wrote:If you want to micromanage a bunch of libraries that may break unexpectedly when things they link against get upgraded, fall behind, or don't exist in the debian packages, sure.
Normally, You can feel if it performance worse with your own senses, and normally is more or less the same performance (no appreciable differences) , so you upgrade as you'll get a better one. I was stuck in ubuntu's 4.4.39 and couldnt upgrade cos the Opera browser i used, went slower responsive or/and laggy. from 4.4.125 on (last i tested) i see that issue has vanished, and thought "Meltdown and Spectre" downgrade patch are by now applied I cant nearly sense that cpu's lost performance. So I upgraded kernel to last one 4.4.x.sunrat wrote:What do you use to check the performance of different kernels? Exactly how are the Ubuntu kernels better than Debian kernels?