Problem in Installation of VLC [HTTP Filter Intervened Installation]

Hi there all!
I am behind a proxy server and the IT department has implemented a strict HTTP filter on the servers. It contains the keywords “audio” and “video” in the blacklist (I am not sure why these general terms instead of more specific terms like “music” or “movies”)… Anyway, that has been preventing me from adding certain repositories like videolan repository. Just like that, it also doesn’t let me download some packages like pulseaudio and portaudio. Now, I got VLC installed through the Packman repository but there were many many packages which were not installed because HTTP filter rejected the download threads. So my current VLC installation is broken. I have no idea as to how many or which packages are missing. But VLC player doesn’t play any file. Actually, it does play some files but only the audio part.

I wanted to know two things. Is there a method by which I can “purge” my VLC installation? As in uninstall all the packages that came with it and then try to install it again?
Secondly, Is there some other way to download these packages blocked by my HTTP filter? Like can I get them somewhere where they do not contain the strings “audio” or “video” in them??? [Hilarious I know. But such is my position right now that I cannot think of an alternative.]

Or maybe I could get an RPM or something like that so that I don’t have to fetch all packages individually? [Building from source???]

Whatsoever, please guide me how to completely uninstall VLC so that I can try to install it some other way. Also which method and how exactly am I supposed to reinstall it.

I shall be very grateful if someone could help.

P.S. I have already forwarded an application to the IT Support Desk but it has a very slim chance of approval. If it gets approved, it’s a pie. But in case it doesn’t I shall have to stick to current plan.

Maybe you could try substituting the IP address of download.videolan.org in the repo URL. It seems to be:

http://88.191.250.9/pub/videolan/vlc/SuSE/11.2/

Fortunately this doesn’t appear to be a virtual host, one that is only accessible via the domain name.

But then, the word video may appear in URLs generated by zypper so you may still have issues later.

PS: If the IT department doesn’t want you fetching media on their network, should you be installing stuff from videolan? I know, many sites have more enlightened policies and your management seems rather ham-fisted, but maybe it’s better to respect their wishes and do media stuff at home. Unless your work requires using media.

You can get all the videolan stuff from the packman repository and it is the recommended source!

If the IT department doesn’t want you fetching media on their network, should you be installing stuff from videolan? I know, many sites have more enlightened policies and your management seems rather ham-fisted, but maybe it’s better to respect their wishes and do media stuff at home. Unless your work requires using media.

It’s not like that! I respect rules (although sometimes it is fun to break some ;))… But really, I wouldn’t do it unless I was sure it’s allowed.
You are right that they don’t want me to download “media” as in music or videos from internet… And I do not do that!
But VLC is not “media” and the libraries are not just “media” either. It is a media player… If media download is not allowed on my network that doesn’t mean that I am not supposed to play the media already on my computer!
And besides, this is probably some dumb artwork of the filter-designers. They allow youtube and other media sites but block the keywords contained in them. Funny!!!
Also, if it was a computer at work provided by the organization, I would not even play the existing media unless it was required by the work. But it is my personal machine. Ok, I won’t download any media, but I am entitled to using media obtained from other sources like music disks and movie DVDs.
The whole thing just doesn’t fit in. And the people at IT desk are so stubborn, Oh my God!!! First of all half of them have never heard of Linux! Those who have, think it is a gaming console, ;)… They simply refuse to understand what I have to say about repositories.

P.S. Replacing the domain name with IP address doesn’t help. :slight_smile:

You are right… All packages are available from the packman repo… But the thing is, while downloading, the blacklisted keywords do happen to occur in the names of packages. It would do if only VideoLAN repo was blocked. But since all the URLs containing the word “video” and “audio” are blocked, it doesn’t work.

Adding to my reply @ken_yap
It is same as if they do not want me to run Linux on my machine, I should respect their wishes. Well, should I??? I don’t think so.
I have forwarded the application but they have the old “We’ll see what we can do” phrase and I don’t think it’s gonna help.

By the way, is there some method I can bypass the proxy server? Or encrypt my connection so that HTTP filter cannot filter it?
I know it would be immoral and abusive, but just for this one package… I won’t do it again, I swear… :stuck_out_tongue:

Try https://download.videolan.org or perhaps with the IP address substituted. In principle they should not be able to see into the HTTPS stream.

Should there be an https address for all repositories?

In fact VLC has been installed (I built portaudio from source)…
Now I need pulseaudio-0.9.21-1.2.1.i586.rpm
Can anyone download the package, rename it and upload it for me to be able to download it

http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/pavucontrol/

Please download the Version 0.9.10 from here and rename it and then upload it to some file hosting server! I shall try to manage the rest by myself

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:36:01 +0000, zia-newversion wrote:

> It is same as if they do not want me to run Linux on my machine, I
> should respect their wishes. Well, should I???

Yes, you should. Unless it’s your own personal machine, it belongs to
the company, and if they don’t want you running Linux, then you should
use the approved operating system they do support.

Violating an IT department’s policies is never a particularly good idea.
Asking for help to circumvent those policies is also never a particularly
good idea.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:26:01 +0000, zia-newversion wrote:

> But really, I wouldn’t do it unless I was sure it’s allowed.

It it were allowed, then the policy wouldn’t be in place. If you have a
legitimate exception to their rule, then they’ll allow it. If they don’t
allow it after you requested it, then you are explicitly violating the
policy they’ve put in place.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

Dear sir! It is my personal computer and the papers I signed while signing up for this network didn’t have any clause relating to a particular Operating System being “approved” or “banned”… Otherwise I wouldn’t be running Linux. As of the machines provided by the organization, Windows is installed on them and I do not want to install OS of my choice on them.
The phrase that you are commenting on was hypothetical. I meant “if it were so…” not “it is so…” :slight_smile:

With that cleared I shall move to your answer to the question. If it were written in any so called policy (there is none, actually) that so-and-so OS is approved and another is not, that would be for the machines that company provides.
If (as in the current scenario) I bought a machine myself, I have every right to install and use an OS of my choice on that machine, unless I sign a contract saying I won’t (which I won’t sign). I am just buying a connection from them and they are absolutely right in limiting the files that we download. But they should mention in there policy that we do not allow download so-and-so Linux packages so you should consider installing another operating system on your machine to avoid broken installation (they have not mentioned that). :slight_smile:

They have mentioned that media download is limited by the HTTP filter but I do not think libraries and installable packages come under the definition of “media”…

>>>
You must be thinking why don’t I do this babble in front of my IT administrators. That is the point. I have been trying to merely make them understand my point of view the whole evening and they are stuck on the very first concept of Linux repos and packages. :frowning:

What they should do, legally, is to pass my application to higher authorities and more learned people who can understand what I have to say. Instead they are trying to suppress the issue and not letting me get to the higher authorities (“he is busy” or “come tomorrow”)…
I mean that is OPPRESSION… What? I should stick to windows if most people around me do not use Linux? How is that ethical? :\

For anyone else thinking I am going against the law here, please, keep in mind that I am obeying the law from all perspectives. There is no such law as to either obstructing download of Linux packages (as of yet).

When I talked about trying to bypass proxy, I was just trying to make a way out of the situation.

Well, suppose you are charged of homicide but actually you are not guilty. Your lawyer says the state-side case is strong and he cannot do anything. What would you do? Sit and wait for capital punishment? Or try some other methods like appealing the media. (Some people would even go for bribery or forging evidence, it happens in real life.) I was just thinking of a way out. Why does everyone think I am committing a crime?

That is again merely a dumb hypothetical example.

And going for HTTPS is fine I think. It is not like I am even bypassing the proxy. If they allowed https:// it’s legal!

Violating an IT department’s policies is never a particularly good idea.
Asking for help to circumvent those policies is also never a particularly
good idea.

Ain’t it inevitable sometimes??? :slight_smile:

Anyway, I am just joking Mr. Henderson! I do not actually long to break those rules and neither am I gonna! All that fuss about downloading VLC player! :\

I have just discovered that it is not VLC which is improperly installed. VLC says something like:

> Failed to initialize your sound device.
> Please install/update pulseaudio to version <some_version>

++ (I cannot believe I didn’t notice it before.)
There is no sound in my system! There is no volume control icon in the panel.
When I run alsaconf it says

> No supported PnP or PCI cards found.

Then on prompting it searches for sound devices but in the end says “no legacy drivers available.”

I believe this is all because of this pulseaudio package not being installed. Isn’t it critical for the ALSA system to work?

Anyway, I should probably start a new thread on this topic. But I am tired right now. So weary of trying to make it work. It just isn’t possible until the IT department (them again!) listen to my woes and accept my application. :stuck_out_tongue:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:16:01 +0000, zia-newversion wrote:

> It is my personal computer and the papers I signed while signing up for
> this network didn’t have any clause relating to a particular Operating
> System being “approved” or “banned”… Otherwise I wouldn’t be running
> Linux. As of the machines provided by the organization, Windows is
> installed on them and I do not want to install OS of my choice on them.

Thanks for clarifying that for us.

The thing is, one thing that does stand in the way of Linux adoption is
the perception by those who are ‘uninitiated’ that Linux people don’t
care about the rules and are willing to ‘hack around’ technical policies
that are put in place by IT personnel at the management’s insistence.

I hope you can see how this negatively impacts the view the uninitiated
have of Linux as a whole.

I read an article about 6 months ago about a teacher in a school here in
the US who insisted anyone running Linux had to be running pirated
software, because nobody in their right mind would just give software
away for free. Therefore, it must be pirated and must be illegal.

That’s a mindset that has to be combated by the community as a whole -
and trying to bypass access controls doesn’t help with that image.

Since you talked about an IT department, it sounded like a business use
case - which generally means the company owns the computers and controls
them and sets the policies for acceptable use. Even with personal
equipment, I’ve seen acceptable use policies that prohibited certain uses.

My aim certainly is not to discourage your use of Linux, but rather to
help you understand and help the larger community dispel the notion that
Linux = bad.

Does that make sense?

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator

zia-newversion wrote:

> I have just discovered that it is not VLC which is improperly
> installed. VLC says something like:
>
>> Failed to initialize your sound device.
>> Please install/update pulseaudio to version <some_version>
>
> ++ (-I cannot believe I didn’t notice it before.-)
> There is no sound in my system! There is no volume control icon in the
> panel.
> When I run alsaconf it says
>
>> No supported PnP or PCI cards found.
>
> Then on prompting it searches for sound devices but in the end says “no
> legacy drivers available.”
>
> I believe this is all because of this
> pulseaudio package not being installed. Isn’t
> it critical for the ALSA system to work?

No, ALSA works just fine w/o pulseaudio. It preceeds pulseaudio by a
number of years. You do have a soundcard, right? Might be on-board or
maybe in a slot. But the hardware has to be there for the software to
work. If you do have the hardware, as the error message says, there’s
no driver for it. It’s either not supported, or you’ll have to find and
install the drivers yourself as openSUSE doesn’t know what to use.

HTH…

…Kevin

Kevin Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
In a recent poll, seven out of ten hard drives preferred Linux.

Well the hardware is there, onboard… Any leads on how to find out which deice it is and how to install the drivers?

lspci
command will list all PCI devices.