This is an SMPlayer fork, obviously

  • Anonymous - 2011-04-04

    Yet it doesn't mention this anywhere on the site. Also, I don't think any mentions of mplayer, which is a backend for both. I think a little acknowledgement wouldn't go amiss.

    Also, why the fork? Just curious. Couldn't the changes be submitted to SMPlayer?

  • Anonymous - 2011-04-04

    Also, for people familiar with SMPlayer, a list of differences from SMPlayer would be appreciated. From what I see, it's new skins and integration with YouTube and ShoutCast. Is there anything else?

  • Ori Rejwan

    Ori Rejwan - 2011-04-05

    The differences are fundamental, listing all the differences is futile since there are so many (just so you'll get a better idea, before releasing version 0.9 we've spent over 500 of man hours) and we continue to contribute to the source on a daily basis; if you look closely at the player and it's source you will notice that we gave full credit to both MPlayer and SMPlayer (just look at the About UMPlayer in the Help context menu) which both are great projects and which UMP owes its existence.

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    I don't get why the open source community is so incredibly catty about this stuff.  The people who work on UMPlayer are providing a great product for free to a large number of people / without restrictions, while being open and respectful about the other great open-source projects that came before them in this space.  I've used this, smplayer, and their mutual backend, mplayer, (and wouldn't almost everything in open-source-ville depend even more fundamentally on ffmpeg?).  From the user perspective, this is vastly better.

  • Ori Rejwan

    Ori Rejwan - 2011-05-07

    +1 :)

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    But information, that UMplayer is fork of SMplayer can only help you. I've used smplayer for years and i didn't know that, there is any fork. I saw some information about this player on and i just ignored it. Yet another sucky player in gtk? I don't need this, I have smplayer. :) So, it looks that way. I became interested in UMplayer, after reading that UMplayer is a fork of smplayer on chakra forums. And now you have next glad user.

    Really, many people who know smplayer, don't know UMplayer. Any information about this and simple changelog (main features) rather, you won't hurt.

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    I just hope that its development will be more active than SMPlayer because it seems it died.

  • Ori Rejwan

    Ori Rejwan - 2011-06-20

    I can promise you that the development of this project is alive and well, and soon we'll be releasing our first release version which should be a media player at par to none.

  • PhobosK

    PhobosK - 2011-07-10

    Yeah just another fork instead of joining efforts in polishing and tweaking the main project it forked from….

    Sadly Linux and the OSS as a whole go down a slope lately…
    Everyone spend useless efforts in creating forks, small projects etc… and all those "new" projects, just do the job other projects do already…
    And it is a shame anyway..

    I do not see any reason to keep this player installed as actually it is only bells and whistles…
    Both SMPlayer and this one use one and the same backend.. so in terms of functionality… no diff for me…

    It's very sad that talented ppl do not join efforts for making one thing.. but making it as better as possible…
    Now efforts are spilled and in time this project will probably get at the stage SMPlayer is…

    BTW i think you should VISIBLY and CLEARLY state on your site where this project came from… I spent 10 minutes finding info on the net about being a fork…
    Anyway good luck…
    (Sorry about the spamming…)

  • snowdrop

    snowdrop - 2011-08-08

    I use this mainly because I read on omgUbuntu that it's a fork of SMPlayer, which I think is the best video media player around.

    What I a curious about is why you forked it and I think many others are as well. Please do not get me wrong: I think forking can be as good as it can be bad. This is not a normative question. I ask it because I'm curious why you didn't join forces -was it because you have vastly different roadmaps? And if so, is there one around for the public?

    I hope this will be developed and maintained more actively than SMPlayer and yet not become bloated or a pale hit-tech SMPlayer clone. Would be nice to see how it aims to stand on it's own legs and more about the dev teams visions for it, where you're heading and the reasoning.

    Keep up the good work!

  • geog51

    geog51 - 2011-08-21

    Can SMPlayer do Youtube?  No.

    I was very glad I tried UMPlayer, this Youtube feature alone instantly won me over. 

  • Francesc Ortiz

    Francesc Ortiz - 2012-02-12

    what about osx support?

  • jammon101

    jammon101 - 2012-03-08

    Can SMPlayer do Youtube? No. I was very glad I tried UMPlayer, this Youtube feature alone instantly won me over.

    Actually it can if you install from svn. It looks like Umplayer is dead, haven't had any activity for quite a long time and posts haven't gotten any reply from the developer either. I am so glad that Smplayer has resumed development.


Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks