| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
 Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
 |
|
| Ant P. wrote: | | By whom and by what justification? Is ffmpeg now considered a child project because it takes patches in the way sensible people expect a FOSS project to work while the "war" fork launders them in the other direction to purge them of copyright notices? |
| Ant P. wrote: | | I've seen enough doublespeak and twisting of words in the last few posts to convince me that my originally giving benefit of the doubt here was an error. Seems the libav slander-and-propaganda machine is still as strong as ever. |
You've asked for a clarification and justification, therefore this is not propaganda; I'm explaining Gentoo's new default and run media-video/ffmpeg myself... Don't crawl back now by twisting your own words.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 6:07 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | That's exactly how projects that used to be great come to an end, by holding on to unmaintainable legacy code |
Claim without proof, especially without proof that there is any relation with ffmpeg. Presumably a lie.
| Quote: | | The ffmpeg core indeed in maintained ... by the libav team ... |
Removing functionality is not development. It is only intentionally destroying work of others.
| Quote: | | which spends time on it, ffmpeg's just lazy and carelessly pulls in libav's carefully crafted work. :D |
Oh yes, clearly only the libav developers spend time and all changes of ffmpeg are only the pulled libav commits. This is all? Come on, you should be able to find more stupid lies about ffmpeg.
| Quote: | | Nobody is destroying work here |
Removing code which others have written is of course not destroying their work, it is [...] (put in your favorite lie).
| Quote: | | and if work ends up being destroyed; it's likely for a good reason... |
Of course, the holy developers have learnt from god that it is a good deed to remove everything from satanist ffmpeg. They are fulfilling just their holy mission of vaporating devil's deed. The fact that the ffmpeg developers consider the code as maintainable can only come from satan itself.
BTW: Which lie do you want to use to explaiin why the carefully crafted patches can just be pulled in by ffmpeg who have not removed lots of functionality first which was the first and technically absolutely necessary step to do any changes because otherwise it is unmaintainible?
| Quote: | | I'll assume the readers are smart enough that they don't need you to point out things as strange, childish and illogical. |
Yes, it is so obvious to see this from such claims as yours. Especially if they know that one project pulls in from another and contributes by itself while the converse action consists of childish NIH, lies about unmaintainability and removal of code.
I consider this a serious problem of not only ffmpeg/libav: There were many good linux projects (gnome2, kde3, parted, SIP applications etc). Then comes a new maintainer, declares the old code as unmaintainable, removes functionality, and finally we have a much worse state than it ever was. If at least these new maintainers would have started another project instead of destroying the existing projects... (OK with kde4 and gnome3 this at least happened in a sense).
Compared to the state of about 4-7 years ago, although certainly some projects (like portage) have evolved, linux as whole is much worse and has much less functionality than it had before. I am really considering switching to another operatoring system because of these problems which apparently are native to open source: The problem is that maintainers are self-declared kings (which AFAIK was originally also a reason for the splitting of ffmpeg/libav, but now exactly the same problem happens in the opposite way...). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | That's exactly how projects that used to be great come to an end, by holding on to unmaintainable legacy code |
Claim without proof, especially without proof that there is any relation with ffmpeg. Presumably a lie. |
It sounds like you don't know S(R)E, you should definitely give WELC a read:
http://www.informit.com/store/working-effectively-with-legacy-code-9780131177055
| mv wrote: | | Quote: | | The ffmpeg core indeed in maintained ... by the libav team ... |
Removing functionality is not development. It is only intentionally destroying work of others. |
It's not development, it's maintenance. Removal of feature creep is a rather normal thing, to prevent software from becoming bloated and unmaintainable.
You may call it destroying as you're unaware with this S(R)E pratice; that's fine, but it is just your opinion...
| mv wrote: | | Quote: | which spends time on it, ffmpeg's just lazy and carelessly pulls in libav's carefully crafted work.  |
Oh yes, clearly only the libav developers spend time and all changes of ffmpeg are only the pulled libav commits. This is all? Come on, you should be able to find more stupid lies about ffmpeg. |
Why would you look for lies? You should find time to find more truth about ffmpeg.
| mv wrote: | | Quote: | | Nobody is destroying work here |
Removing code which others has written is of course not destroying work, it is [...] (put in your favorite lie). |
Sounds like you're advocating code ownership and holding on to eternal legacy code, from a S(R)E perspective both are bad ideas.
| mv wrote: | | Quote: | | and if work ends up being destroyed; it's likely for a good reason... |
Of course, the holy developers have learnt from god that it is a good deed to remove everything from satanist ffmpeg. They are fulfilling just their holy mission of vaporating devil's deed. The fact that the ffmpeg developers consider the code as maintainable can only come from satan itself. |
That's what you said.
| mv wrote: | | BTW: Which lie do you want to use to explaiin why the carefully crafted patches can just be pulled in by ffmpeg who have not removed lots of functionality first which was the first and technically absolutely necessary step to do any changes because otherwise it is unmaintainible? |
This question doesn't make sense, the patches can be pulled; where's the 'lie' in this? You're looking for lies again.
| mv wrote: | | Yes, it is so obvious to see this from such claims as yours. Especially if they know that one project pulls in from another and contributes by itself while the converse action consists of childish NIH, lies about unmaintainability and removal of code. |
They rather see ad hominem straw man attacks like this one from you because you can't refute the central point made up by claims made by others. As I noted earlier, I'm merely explaining on the grounds of S(R)E why the maintainers have likely picked this to be the default; but, you don't notice this as you're taking a side in all of this and assuming any of what I said is the opposite side. This is likely because you miss the S(R)E knowledge and experience to understand any of this, S(R)Es would agree with the explanations made here.
Ironically I've been running programs that actively use media-video/ffmpeg throughout this whole thread. I'm considering to switch given what Gentoo is pursuing as a default, I haven't yet said I will; by the time I have to make this decision (less forced media-video/ffmpeg dependencies, unmasking of the new default, ...), the status of both upstream projects can have radically changed due to maintenance decisions... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | This is likely because you miss the S(R)E knowledge and experience to understand any of this, S(R)Es would agree with the explanations made here. |
I am just so glad that the holy S(R)E enlightened my stupidity which kept all the legacy functionality in my projects. I will immediately wipe most of functionality of all my projects, of course keeping the name and pushing the crippled functionality to the users, pointing out that the projects are so much easier to maintain now that much crucial legacy functionality has been thrown overboard. My users will be happy and praise S(R)E as I do. Of course, S(R)E must know better than my dozens years of experience. Stupid me!
Seriously, I have enough experience being able to distinguis serious research in computer science from pseudo-arguments.
If all ffmpeg developers themselves agree that something should be restructured, there would probably a point in it. If only some newly self-declared maintainers after a fight claim this and cannot get rid of code quickly enough, while others (among them the original developers who know the code very well) claim the opposite I know whom to trust. Invoking pseudo-science in a lie does not make it any better for an experienced programmer. Unfortunately, it might impress users who know nothing about the background (not long ago I was one of them, being convinced that libav must be better now that some gentoo developers declared it as the new default). And so I am now in you mis-logic a proof that libav is better, because "of course I have switched for a reason" as have many other users and so the switch of the default justifies itself because so many people have switched. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | This is likely because you miss the S(R)E knowledge and experience to understand any of this, S(R)Es would agree with the explanations made here. |
I am just so glad that the holy S(R)E enlightened my stupidity which kept all the legacy functionality in my projects. I will immediately wipe most of functionality of all my projects, of course keeping the name and pushing the crippled functionality to the users, pointing out that the projects are so much easier to maintain now that much crucial legacy functionality has been thrown overboard. My users will be happy and praise S(R)E as I do. Of course, S(R)E must know better than my dozens years of experience. Stupid me!
Seriously, ... |
Since you claim to have no S(R)E experience, you can't tell whether it actually does. Yeah, you're definitely no longer being serious...
| mv wrote: | | ..., I have enough experience being able to distinguis serious research in computer science from pseudo-arguments. |
Yet, you make them yourself and don't care to back them up; you're the one taking a side here with your argumentation, but there's however no sign of research in what you say to make your point.
| mv wrote: | | If all ffmpeg developers themselves agree that something should be restructured, there would probably a point in it. If only some newly self-declared maintainers after a fight claim this and cannot get rid of code quickly enough, while others (among them the original developers who know the code very well) claim the opposite I know whom to trust. |
Good for you.
| mv wrote: | | Invoking pseudo-science in a lie does not make it any better for an experienced programmer. |
Agreed.
| mv wrote: | | Unfortunately, it might impress users who know nothing about the background |
s/impress/learn/; I know you want to impress them, but that's not what I'm here for.
| mv wrote: | | (not long ago I was one of them, being convinced that libav must be better now that some gentoo developers declared it as the new default). |
Who said this was about being the best? You just did.
| mv wrote: | | And so I am now in you mis-logic a proof that libav is better, ... |
I'm not proving libav is better, get your facts together; I'm merely explaining why it's the default from a Gentoo and S(R)E perspective, I'm not even running it myself.
| mv wrote: | | ... , because "of course I have switched for a reason" as have many other users and so the switch of the default justifies itself because so many people have switched. |
Did you switch, or what are you talking about here? As long as we hear no big complaints and everyone's happy except for some haters, it indeed justifies itself.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:28 am Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| I am not going to spend any more time replying to your pseudo-scientific and (hopefully to everybody) clearly illogical arguments. Feel free to continue to believe that destroying projects is scientifically recommended and to defame people who see that in a particular situation the motivation for this is something completely different as scientifically ignorant - readers will recognize your simple rhetorical tricks bare of all facts and logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:21 am Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | I am not going to spend any more time replying to your pseudo-scientific and (hopefully to everybody) clearly illogical arguments. |
They are not arguments, and I'm not going to spend any more time on trying to make that clear to you.
| mv wrote: | | Feel free to continue to believe |
Honestly, I don't care.
| mv wrote: | | that destroying projects is scientifically recommended |
That's subjective.
| mv wrote: | | to defame people |
I am not doing such thing.
| mv wrote: | | who see that in a particular situation the motivation for this is something completely different as scientifically ignorant |
Scientifically ignorant is whom is scientifically ignorant.
| mv wrote: | | readers will recognize your simple rhetorical tricks bare of all facts and logic. |
Readers will recognize what they will recognize.
Last edited by TomWij on Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:36 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1480
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You both are important Gentoo members and it doesn't help nobody seeing you fight each other personally.
- I found answering 2011 the fork at http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339
| Niedermayer wrote: | I never was, nor wanted to be a legendary leader.
....
But the main thing i really did and still do in ffmpeg is reviewing patches. I havnt done any statistics but iam pretty sure ive reviewed more patches than all members of libav added together. About gsoc, mike & ronald did great work there but again most (not all) of the final code review work before interation into ffmpeg was done by me. And where i failed to do it, often noone else did either, and that was true for more than just gsoc patches.
Todays reviews in ffmpeg still are pretty much what they always where, the people who understand a patch and have time and will, do a review.
In libav, yesterday mxpeg was merged with a arbitrary code execution security bug, and the author even mentioned in the thread the last patch had securits issues. and 3 days ago security issues in dfa.c.
So at the risk of being branded a troll i think the review quality of libav is not at the same level ffmpegs is. |
- I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libav
| Code: | Since the time of the fork, the maintainer of FFmpeg packages for Debian and Ubuntu, being one of the group of developers who forked FFmpeg, have switched to this fork.
Libav has been adopted by some other distributions, such as Gentoo. Arch Linux has a source port in AUR. Major users of FFmpeg like MPlayer, xine and VLC have opted not to make a switch, although MPlayer2, a fork of MPlayer, uses Libav exclusively. GStreamer supports both through different plugins. |
- I see Libav correcting security flaws later than ffmpeg
- Despite claims ffmpeg having an unmaintainable codebase, they released ffmpeg-1.2. Unmasking this release runs well for me.
What is the point to follow libav for a normal user, when even advocates of libav run ffmpeg on their installations ? Other than using MPlayer2 ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulenrich wrote: | | Other than using MPlayer2 ... |
I do not quite understand this, because AFAIK the situation is quite the opposite as your remark seems to suggest:
MPlayer2 is by upstream meant to work only with libav, but there are patches in gentoo so that it works also with ffmpeg.
In contrast, mplayer{1} is by upstream meant to work only with ffmpeg, and it seems nobody succeeded (or tried?) to patch it.
Please, correct me if I am wrong: Such information is quickly outdated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulenrich wrote: | | You both are important Gentoo members |
Nobody is more important than anyone else.
| ulenrich wrote: | | and it doesn't help nobody seeing you fight each other personally. |
Putting up a fight where there is none helps nobody but himself, subconsciously.
| ulenrich wrote: | | Niedermayer wrote: | | I never was, nor wanted to be a legendary leader. |
|
Words as a response to a blog post could have been done by anyone, but let's just assume it is him.
A maintainer starting a post like this can be considered somewhat odd, why exactly does he want to do if he doesn't want to lead? If he doesn't want to be legendary, what else?
| ulenrich wrote: | | Niedermayer wrote: | | But the main thing i really did and still do in ffmpeg is reviewing patches. |
|
So, that makes him more kind of like a reviewer.
| ulenrich wrote: | | Niedermayer wrote: | | I havnt done any statistics but iam pretty sure ive reviewed more patches than all members of libav added together. |
|
This makes no sense, he started in 2004 while libav started in 2011; if there have been more patches in 2 years than there have been in 9 years it would have been pretty remarkable.
... skipping irrelevant gsoc part ...
| ulenrich wrote: | | Niedermayer wrote: | | Todays reviews in ffmpeg still are pretty much what they always where, the people who understand a patch and have time and will, do a review. |
|
What does this even mean? Time and will? Does that mean not everything passes review? Patches are heavily delayed? They are experiencing maintenance burden?
| ulenrich wrote: | | Niedermayer wrote: | | In libav, yesterday mxpeg was merged with a arbitrary code execution security bug, and the author even mentioned in the thread the last patch had securits issues. and 3 days ago security issues in dfa.c. |
|
You can't catch everything during review. http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200903-33.xml http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200601-06.xml
| ulenrich wrote: | | Niedermayer wrote: | | So at the risk of being branded a troll i think the review quality of libav is not at the same level ffmpegs is. |
|
Based on one or two patches without further statistics, that's indeed intentional trolling.
| ulenrich wrote: | - I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libav
| Code: | Since the time of the fork, the maintainer of FFmpeg packages for Debian and Ubuntu, being one of the group of developers who forked FFmpeg, have switched to this fork.
Libav has been adopted by some other distributions, such as Gentoo. Arch Linux has a source port in AUR. Major users of FFmpeg like MPlayer, xine and VLC have opted not to make a switch, although MPlayer2, a fork of MPlayer, uses Libav exclusively. GStreamer supports both through different plugins. |
|
Exactly, they're moving towards libav, we're currently somewhat in a 50% libav / 50% ffmpeg world.
| ulenrich wrote: | | - I see Libav correcting security flaws later than ffmpeg |
Where?
| ulenrich wrote: | | - Despite claims ffmpeg having an unmaintainable codebase, they released ffmpeg-1.2. Unmasking this release runs well for me. |
Unmaintainability has nothing to do with releases. Furthermore, ffmpeg-1.2 has broken audio in some occasions, hence the mask; if you don't experience it; you're lucky.
| ulenrich wrote: | | What is the point to follow libav for a normal user, |
I've explained that in the second response to this thread, and further explained and further inquiries that in all the remaining replies.
| ulenrich wrote: | | when even advocates of libav run ffmpeg on their installations ? Other than using MPlayer2 ... |
Who advocates libav and runs ffmpeg? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1480
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | Given that people are moving to libav and how libav and ffmpeg compare to each other, it's justified to call it the new upstream; of course there's no such concept as actual upstream switching, but rather a change in personal preference.
...
I'm still using ffmpeg myself too, but as less packages hard depend on it I will likely consider to switch in the future. |
@Tom, you consider libav the new upstream, but you only consider to switch in the future?
After two years of the fork this misses some logic 
And left me as a user in confusion, when I follow you Scarabeus link stating at
http://blogs.gentoo.org/scarabeus/2013/01/15/libav-going-to-be-default-provider-for-your-codec-experience/
| Code: | What to do when some package does not build with libav but ffmpeg is fine
There are no such packages left around if I am searching correctly |
Last edited by ulenrich on Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | Furthermore, ffmpeg-1.2 has broken audio in some occasions, hence the mask; if you don't experience it; you're lucky. |
-vv please.
As I understand, the mask is related with switching to "planar audio" (whatever this means...) and some applications have not yet been adapted for it. As I understand it, this has nothing to do with ffmpeg malfunctioning but only means something like a changed API (API understood in a loose sense), and programs not yet ready for this new API will break. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1480
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@mv, could you link the bug with affected applications?
Tom probably refers to his own bug
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=468890
which states: "audio of ffmpeg through vlc failes"
But his special circumstance I - as a non professional of audio - am unable to reproduce.
@Tom, could you give me an exact recipe (cmdline) to reproduce your bug? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| ulenrich wrote: | | @Tom, you consider libav the new upstream, but you only consider to switch in the future? |
The maintainers do as per changing the default, not me; I'm just following along and explaining their means here, I just see no reason to go against their decision.
| ulenrich wrote: | | After two years of the fork this misses some logic |
Maybe, perhaps there'll be news when thing gets unmasked; perhaps not, we'll see...
They're not meant as news towards users, I think.
| ulenrich wrote: | | Code: | What to do when some package does not build with libav but ffmpeg is fine
There are no such packages left around if I am searching correctly |
|
Yet there are hard dependencies on both packages.
| mv wrote: | | -vv please. As I understand, the mask is related with switching to "planar audio" (whatever this means...) and some applications have not yet been adapted for it. As I understand it, this has nothing to do with ffmpeg malfunctioning but only means something like a changed API (API understood in a loose sense), and programs not yet ready for this new API will break. |
Application Programming Interface changes that don't result in compilation failures or clear errors is what causes things like this; having it break on people in production isn't the right way to ensure a new API is adapted, a program that succeeds to compile but then in production doesn't live up to the specifications is malfunctioning.
| ulenrich wrote: | | @Tom, could you give me an exact recipe (cmdline) to reproduce your bug? |
First make sure you have ffmpeg-1.2, I don't know if this is still there on ffmpeg-1.2.1 but as far as I remember the ChangeLog it didn't mention a fix; furthermore, upstream is still at 1.2 as well.
| Quote: | schedtool -I -e ionice -c 2 -n 0 vlc -vvv v4l2:///dev/video0 :v4l2-standard=PAL_B --v4l2-aspect-ratio=16:9 --input-slave alsa://hw:1,0 --fullscreen --sout="#transcode{vcodec=h264,vfilter={deinterlace: croppadd{paddtop=66,paddbottom=72,cropleft=6,cropright=10}: canvas{width=1024,height=572,aspect=16:9,no-padd}},acodec=mpga,mux=avi,vb=160000000,ab=192}:standard{access=file,mux=avi,dst=/tmp/recorded.avi}"
vlc /tmp/recorded.avi |
Doing this (if you get it to work, since you'll need at least a camera) after playing back the recorded video the audio stutters horribly, downgrading to ffmpeg-1.0.6 resolves this.
There are other mentions in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466300 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | Who advocates libav and runs ffmpeg? |
Gee, I wonder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ant P. wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | Who advocates libav and runs ffmpeg? |
Gee, I wonder. |
You don't have to, it's rhetorical: Its maintainers do by making libav the default, but as it is masked everyone is still running ffmpeg.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich
Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1480
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:07 pm Post subject: ffmpeg and libav relations |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | First make sure you have ffmpeg-1.2, I don't know if this is still there on ffmpeg-1.2.1 but as far as I remember the ChangeLog it didn't mention a fix; furthermore, upstream is still at 1.2 as well.
| Quote: | schedtool -I -e ionice -c 2 -n 0 vlc -vvv v4l2:///dev/video0 :v4l2-standard=PAL_B --v4l2-aspect-ratio=16:9 --input-slave alsa://hw:1,0 --fullscreen --sout="#transcode{vcodec=h264,vfilter={deinterlace: croppadd{paddtop=66,paddbottom=72,cropleft=6,cropright=10}: canvas{width=1024,height=572,aspect=16:9,no-padd}},acodec=mpga,mux=avi,vb=160000000,ab=192}:standard{access=file,mux=avi,dst=/tmp/recorded.avi}"
vlc /tmp/recorded.avi |
Doing this (if you get it to work, since you'll need at least a camera) after playing back the recorded video the audio stutters horribly, downgrading to ffmpeg-1.0.6 resolves this. |
Sorry, I don't have a camera.
And yes there was a ffmpeg-1.2.1 released at
http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=tag;h=b28719ddb2c40b3b6d8f8ff67f6b85799d33111e
| Quote: | object f166a02b67a261ba4fddc5650b235dbd26ae6263 commit
author Michael Niedermayer <michaelni@gmx.at>
Fri, 10 May 2013 00:43:00 +0000 (02:43 +0200)
FFmpeg 1.2.1 release |
@Tom, don't you think your bug is a bit too special to find anything useful special to ffmpeg, let alone "schedtool ionice"?
After reading from 2012:
http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html
After the fork | Quote: | Michael also started to merge the Libav changes back into FFmpeg every 1-2 day, with a lot of forgotten, previously rejected, sometimes controversial features, or in stand-by such as ffmpeg-mt.
...
the fork stimulated the competition, and FFmpeg became a way better (IMHO) and more complete project. Also, I must say the leader's attitude completely changed, in a very good way. This is certainly one of the most positive thing that came out of that war.
...
Libav is totally ignoring FFmpeg since the beginning (almost 2 years of development now). And this is of course not only related to features, they also don't give a damn about regressions they introduce, security issues (look for "j00ru" in the FFmpeg history for instance), and overall bug fixes. This is not 3-4 patches, there are hundreds of them.
At times, you can see them picking random stuff from FFmpeg, but they often re-fix them in their own way, taking the privilege to take the full authorship, suggesting it's trivial enough |
IMHO (after reading above quoted) you don't want to rely on libav directly. Wouldn't it be great everybody acknowledged to have an
* up upstream libav
leading the direction of the future api
* upstream ffmpeg
as a reliable intermediary doing the code review, worrying about security and compatibility |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: ffmpeg and libav relations |
|
|
| ulenrich wrote: | | Sorry, I don't have a camera. |
As I said, it depends on what you do; this use case isn't the only one as shown by the bug.
Given that I need any versions unmasked for media-video/handbrake, I'm on top of these releases.
My point here was that the website didn't update along...
| ulenrich wrote: | | @Tom, don't you think your bug is a bit too special to find anything useful special to ffmpeg, let alone "schedtool ionice"? |
You've asked for the full command line, I don't think any of those would be the cause; if it were, ffmpeg would be quite unreliable. It is reproducible without them, it clearly is ffmpeg's planar audio breakage.
| ulenrich wrote: | After reading from 2012:
http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html
| Quote: | the fork stimulated the competition, and FFmpeg became a way better (IMHO) and more complete project. Also, I must say the leader's attitude completely changed, in a very good way. This is certainly one of the most positive thing that came out of that war.
...
Libav is totally ignoring FFmpeg since the beginning (almost 2 years of development now). And this is of course not only related to features, they also don't give a damn about regressions they introduce, security issues (look for "j00ru" in the FFmpeg history for instance), and overall bug fixes. This is not 3-4 patches, there are hundreds of them. |
At times, you can see them picking random stuff from FFmpeg, but they often re-fix them in their own way, taking the privilege to take the full authorship, suggesting it's trivial enough |
You are clearly picking ffmpeg in specific while ignoring the remainder; the author of this blog post is rather neutral as clear from the last paragraphs, just like me.
| ulenrich wrote: | | IMHO most downstream projects don't want to rely on libav directly. |
Which measures were taken here, or are we talking about four projects that were mentioned before?
And what does project really mean here? Because I could interpret that as distribution projects as well, which would falsify that statement.
| ulenrich wrote: | Wouldn't it be great everybody acknowledged to have an
* up upstream libav
leading the direction of the future api |
I'm not here to acknowledge that, since the future may change as I previously stated; but the maintainers (for clarity, I'm not part of them) have at least acknowledged that.
| ulenrich wrote: | * upstream ffmpeg
as a reliable intermediary doing the code review, worrying about security and compatibility |
Reviews when they have "time and will" (words by their maintainer), security issues that leak through anyway and their API compatibility breaking audio causing it to be masked; intermediary, yes but reliable, no.
That being said, libav is not any better or worse; it's masked as well. Let the battle of unmasking one of them begin!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:16 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | Navar wrote: | | ... suggestion to adjust ebuild ... |
This is totally not needed and sets you up for maintaining it locally and experiencing problems in the future, just keeping a proper /etc/portage should work
| Code: | | `echo "media-video/libav -*" >> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords` |
is quite effective as it makes the whole package invisible... |
So what? How do you seriously propose the suggested change would break over time? That you and or other developers will make sure there is no >=ffmpeg-1.1 or any ffmpeg in the tree at all? You'll kill off the virtual parent dependency and go back to having direct dependencies for libav only per ebuild? Maybe the last rites on that will go quietly undocumented too.
Anyway, after 5 years of using without issue, I disagree regarding the sun, moon and stars falling due to a local overlay build change. First, it's a trivial ebuild handling a binary condition that you assert other developers involved made an unfortunately conscious decision to flip force their way well after asserting, documenting and allowing ffmpeg to be the initial default. Documentation isn't exactly overflowing on these particular decisions made. Second, the OP was quite clear what they wanted (continued use of ffmpeg with no libav whatsoever) and even though it was up to them to find out why libav got magically installed on their system, this would help them get past the subjectively reversed condition test. As for the more obscure token option for the newer accept_keywords file (which seems to have stretched in semantics over time from the now deprecated keywords file due to profile changes), fair enough, though the clearly more intuitive package.mask would have worked just fine. But given your use of it coupled with the wording of the man page, your use seems particularly fitting, [...]this indicates that the package is known to be broken on all systems[...] ;).
I don't enjoy having many files to juggle in /etc (and with a crossdev system I have a few). That is RedHat mentality. I can make just as much simple argument (or as you like to chime in with the overuse of 'straw man ad hominem' vernacular, 'my opinion'), that noting ::x-portage is easy to see, remove as necessary versus digging through however many new /etc file layouts we can come up with this year. Also, people tend to remember and understand more by the conscious act of doing to resolve an issue than just --autounmask-write'ing everything away into a mess of flat files, blindly. The point and purpose of Gentoo was to empower, not to be yet another distribution of lemmings.
I gave advice to the OP without over-speculating or laying blame at their feet for their predicament. Instead, I focused, neutrally, in explaining why what was going on from the source to help educate and better their future experience with Gentoo. The things you re-iterated with one exception, were already all pointed out beforehand by others and myself.
| TomWij wrote: | | That being said, you should consider to switch to libav in the future as that's the new upstream and ffmpeg is merely pulling updates from them. |
Your complete, but pretending to be in denial, bias here stands out like a sore thumb and continues on into the rest of the entire thread when people rightly got annoyed by your comments. My personal stance is simply that I hope this doesn't turn into yet another epic cluster!@#$ of broken functionality that 'needed' to be broken for the sake of change, again. Because of personal and political agendas. Because of the current buzz of trade winds verbage of agile, refactoring, TDD and so on you rattled off which didn't get where they are from not standing on the backs of years of modularity, proper design and requirements analysis, basic version control, common sense testing and code review. And what the flying !@#$ any of that has to do with ffmpeg/libav which are your typical larger projects in C makes me quickly realize I've been reading man pages before you knew the term.
Your posts here smack of a certain (in)famous Pulseaudio developer. Take some advice, try harder not to mimic him. Some of the best developers out there have been extremely humble people.
If competition is to be a good thing for the community it cannot be via broken APIs just to cause factions. It cannot be due to regressions, security issues that go unfixed and so on. None of this is healthy or in the true spirit of competition to produce a better product. The survivor should be due to solid design, extendability, best performance, security and reliability. The judge of all that eventually needs to be the end user, not you. FFmpeg has worked well for many for years. The original arguments, to me, seemed over commit control than anything else. If LibAV is to be prominent and eventually take over, it should do so in a professional fashion and achieve that out of merit rather than being the playground bully or the newly hired overbearing out to prove themselves project manager who changes everything due to lack of understanding, appreciation of the efforts that came before, intolerance and self serving greed to look like they achieved something. In other words, be substantive with the work speaking for itself, not subjective via your words and actions.
| TomWij wrote: |
Although in this case, libav seems no option: media-video/ffmpeg required by (media-plugins/gst-plugins-ffmpeg-0.10.13_p201211::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
| Navar wrote: | | No point in filing a bug report that may get subjectively ignored. Maybe it is just human error. |
Not a bug. Just a misunderstanding of how masking and keywording works. If things are still unclear after the above and checking the man pages, feel free to ask clarification... |
Potato, potatoe. Coke, Pepsi.
Semantics, or, to paraphrase you, your opinion. If you wanted to present your end user a consistent platform, you pick defaults. You don't surprise them from those default assertions without warning and communication. Switching between those defaults for your own personal agendas willy nilly fashion while making the end user left guessing can be quickly construed as a bug. Define bug. If your code acts in an unpredictable manner to your clients, compiles fine and in your mind acts how you feel it should behave but not your clients, is it a bug? In any case, all we have here in this thread were crickets to the real intentions and your opinions that it'll be the status quo (yet you are so neutral!) Honestly, what made you chime in?
A second piece of advice, if you're going to continue overtly paraphrasing and quoting every little statement and half statement of the people you respond to, perhaps you should try to fully read and digest what they said in full to you in your counter arguments.
As far as my understanding of masking and keywording, I have no misunderstandings other than your misunderstanding myself and my intentions. +1 for a somewhat tactful yet trite way to state RTFM on a myopic item that most would quickly forget and have no use of.
_________________
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: [Solved] ffmpeg tries to pull libav - but they're mutual |
|
|
| Navar wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | Navar wrote: | | ... suggestion to adjust ebuild ... |
This is totally not needed and sets you up for maintaining it locally and experiencing problems in the future, just keeping a proper /etc/portage should work
| Code: | | `echo "media-video/libav -*" >> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords` |
is quite effective as it makes the whole package invisible... |
So what? How do you seriously propose the suggested change would break over time? |
I did not state that it would break, that is merely your assumption; what I did intent to state is that it would become a maintenance burden, as in problematic to maintain your local fork.
| Navar wrote: | | That you and or other developers will make sure there is no >=ffmpeg-1.1 or any ffmpeg in the tree at all? You'll kill off the virtual parent dependency and go back to having direct dependencies for libav only per ebuild? |
I don't see an indication of any such thing, just your speculation.
| Navar wrote: | | Maybe the last rites on that will go quietly undocumented too. |
Last rites are properly documented under the form of a mail, the form of a mask and the form of a Portage error which are present at least 30 days in advance of the removal; I am yet to see an undocumented removal.
| Navar wrote: | | Anyway, after 5 years of using without issue, I disagree regarding the sun, moon and stars falling due to a local overlay build change. |
Five years of time and space (pun intended) that could be invested in a single config line instead.
| Navar wrote: | | First, it's a trivial ebuild handling a binary condition that you assert other developers involved made an unfortunately conscious decision to flip force their way well after asserting, documenting and allowing ffmpeg to be the initial default. |
Defaults change over time.
| Navar wrote: | | Documentation isn't exactly overflowing on these particular decisions made. |
This has been discussed in detail on our mailing lists, as well as publicised in the form of blog posts and since it hasn't been stabilized (in fact, it is even hard masked) more documentation is very likely to follow.
| Navar wrote: | | Second, the OP was quite clear what they wanted (continued use of ffmpeg with no libav whatsoever) |
That's exactly what that single config line does, without any further maintenance costs that a forked ebuild would bring.
| Navar wrote: | | and even though it was up to them to find out why libav got magically installed on their system, this would help them get past the subjectively reversed condition test. |
We have blogged about this, we have a dependency tree for this (--tree --unordered-display) and the user isn't running a stable system; there is no such thing as magically if you are running a experimental testing system due to testing keywords and unmasking, of course you then get what we are testing before documenting, announcing and releasing it to the masses.
| Navar wrote: | | As for the more obscure token option for the newer accept_keywords file (which seems to have stretched in semantics over time from the now deprecated keywords file due to profile changes), fair enough, though the clearly more intuitive package.mask would have worked just fine. |
Does that really matter? No. Removing keywords in an acceptable way to remove visibility.
| Navar wrote: | | But given your use of it coupled with the wording of the man page, your use seems particularly fitting, [...]this indicates that the package is known to be broken on all systems[...] . |
Broken on all systems of the user, because he applies this change locally.
| Navar wrote: | | I don't enjoy having many files to juggle in /etc (and with a crossdev system I have a few). |
Then don't have many files; but really, that would be premature optimization. If you don't want to configure that many files, then accept their defaults.
| Navar wrote: | | That is RedHat mentality. |
Whatever that mentality is, I don't care.
| Navar wrote: | I can make just as much simple argument (or as you like to chime in with the overuse of 'straw man ad hominem' vernacular, 'my opinion'), that noting : -portage is easy to see, remove as necessary versus digging through however many new /etc file layouts we can come up with this year. |
But yet you don't make the argument; because you know it would be straw man, ad hominem, opionated or whatever you would like to call it. If you want to use :-portage as a means to have a more difficult workaround having to configure your system properly, go ahead; nobody will stop you and nobody will care.
| Navar wrote: | | Also, people tend to remember and understand more by the conscious act of doing to resolve an issue than just --autounmask-write'ing everything away into a mess of flat files, blindly. |
No such proposal was made here, this sounds like irrelevant rant to me.
| Navar wrote: | | The point and purpose of Gentoo was to empower, not to be yet another distribution of lemmings. |
Of course, that's documented in the about and philosophy pages on the main site.
| Navar wrote: | | I gave advice to the OP without over-speculating or laying blame at their feet for their predicament. Instead, I focused, neutrally, in explaining why what was going on from the source to help educate and better their future experience with Gentoo. |
So did I and I don't see any problem with that.
| Navar wrote: | | The things you re-iterated with one exception, were already all pointed out beforehand by others and myself. |
They were further explanations and clarifications, which were missing.
| Navar wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | That being said, you should consider to switch to libav in the future as that's the new upstream and ffmpeg is merely pulling updates from them. |
Your complete, but pretending to be in denial, bias here stands out like a sore thumb and continues on into the rest of the entire thread when people rightly got annoyed by your comments. |
There's nothing to get annoyed at, I'm merely reflecting the maintainers. None of this is my bias. There's nothing to get annoyed about, it's all in your mind.
| Navar wrote: | | My personal stance is simply that I hope this doesn't turn into yet another epic cluster!@#$ of broken functionality that 'needed' to be broken for the sake of change, again. Because of personal and political agendas. Because of the current buzz of trade winds verbage of agile, refactoring, TDD and so on you rattled off which didn't get where they are from not standing on the backs of years of modularity, proper design and requirements analysis, basic version control, common sense testing and code review. And what the flying !@#$ any of that has to do with ffmpeg/libav which are your typical larger projects in C makes me quickly realize I've been reading man pages before you knew the term. |
As I said before, we're yet to see what happens in the near future; don't rage before you need to, that's not good.
| Navar wrote: | | Your posts here smack of a certain (in)famous Pulseaudio developer. Take some advice, try harder not to mimic him. Some of the best developers out there have been extremely humble people. |
Ad Hominem.
| Navar wrote: | | If competition is to be a good thing for the community it cannot be via broken APIs just to cause factions. It cannot be due to regressions, security issues that go unfixed and so on. None of this is healthy or in the true spirit of competition to produce a better product. The survivor should be due to solid design, extendability, best performance, security and reliability. The judge of all that eventually needs to be the end user, not you. FFmpeg has worked well for many for years. The original arguments, to me, seemed over commit control than anything else. If LibAV is to be prominent and eventually take over, it should do so in a professional fashion and achieve that out of merit rather than being the playground bully or the newly hired overbearing out to prove themselves project manager who changes everything due to lack of understanding, appreciation of the efforts that came before, intolerance and self serving greed to look like they achieved something. In other words, be substantive with the work speaking for itself, not subjective via your words and actions. |
Like I said before; they were not my personal arguments, they were an explanation of why the decision was taken by people other than me. You are way more subjective than I am; as you showed yourself, with a whole paragraph starting with "My personal stance" that is full of "!@#$". As you can see; not a single "!@#$" was given in response.
| Navar wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | Although in this case, libav seems no option: media-video/ffmpeg required by (media-plugins/gst-plugins-ffmpeg-0.10.13_p201211::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
| Navar wrote: | | No point in filing a bug report that may get subjectively ignored. Maybe it is just human error. |
Not a bug. Just a misunderstanding of how masking and keywording works. If things are still unclear after the above and checking the man pages, feel free to ask clarification... |
Potato, potatoe. Coke, Pepsi.
Semantics, or, to paraphrase you, your opinion. If you wanted to present your end user a consistent platform, you pick defaults. You don't surprise them from those default assertions without warning and communication. Switching between those defaults for your own personal agendas willy nilly fashion while making the end user left guessing can be quickly construed as a bug. Define bug. If your code acts in an unpredictable manner to your clients, compiles fine and in your mind acts how you feel it should behave but not your clients, is it a bug? In any case, all we have here in this thread were crickets to the real intentions and your opinions that it'll be the status quo (yet you are so neutral!) Honestly, what made you chime in? |
You seem to be thinking of me as if I am the mantainer of any of ffmpeg or libav ebuilds; take a closer look, because that is actually not the case, this is not my personal agenda. Therefore an explanation of their decisions are not my arguments. You're ranting at the wrong person...
virtual/ffmpeg, media-video/ffmpeg and media-video/libav are maintained by the herds media-video and video; this can be seen in the metadata.xml in the ebuild directory, members of the herds are listed on http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/herds.xml.
| Navar wrote: | | A second piece of advice, if you're going to continue overtly paraphrasing and quoting every little statement and half statement of the people you respond to, perhaps you should try to fully read and digest what they said in full to you in your counter arguments. As far as my understanding of masking and keywording, I have no misunderstandings other than your misunderstanding myself and my intentions. +1 for a somewhat tactful yet trite way to state RTFM on a myopic item that most would quickly forget and have no use of. |
That's what you think of it; however, it's not what is the actual reality.
Take a step back yourself, and fully read the whole thread again to see how misunderstood you are about my contributions to this thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A speech worthy of a politician. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ant P. wrote: | | A speech worthy of a politician. |
Let's not comment on Navar's speech that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
TomWij,
Throughout almost the entirety of this thread, you're seeming to attempt being eristic to the point of exhibiting amusement.
I never asserted nor assumed you were a direct developer involved in this context (and didn't need to since I've not seen your name associated with it), you did continue to present yourself as an authority to speak for others decisions, however.
I would sincerely hope that if moderators are viewing this thread closely that they have taken into context the whole of it, as would seem most appropriate. Being mentioned as an inappropriate post merely by disagreeing with a number of your generalizations is not something I expected to see as reasoning listed for me.
| Tomwij wrote: | | You are way more subjective than I am; as you showed yourself, with a whole paragraph starting with "My personal stance" that is full of "!@#$". |
No. This I definitely did not state. Re-read what I stated again. Instead you are becoming further accusatory.
Also, had you true intentions of being respectful to your readers and those you argued against, you would have at least spelled out your acronyms once in common courtesy before use and avoided citing a one author book via informit as justification of your view of the facts rebuttal. We can only presume from the book cited which no reviews of which use your S(R)E specialized acronym that you meant Software Reliablity Engineering. Or perhaps you meant Google's definition, Site Reliability Engineering, who knows, why should we attempt guessing further. Either way, while remaining unclear, you continued to utilize that swinging as a bat at your opponents in some vain attempt to establish further credibility. Furthermore, far too many recent texts than not tend to evangelize their new way with the old way being the subject of scorn and ridicule.
Please define your version of neutrality. Maybe it'll help enlighten us further on your version of reality.
Your accusations of me ranting, yelling, rage and, good grief, hatred are simply untrue and your words alone. Annoyed at your actions and demeanor warranting a challenge, sure.
Now most of the conjecture thrown into this thread originated from you which others felt inclined to refute, those that dared anyway.
All of this seems to be what you have issue with while bringing forth your request before the judge, because appearently the jury has been thrown out: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7331290.html#7331290 It's even more bizzare to me that you focused on singling me out.
Given that you're associated with kernel as far as Gentoo developer listings go and your talk of mailing lists, surely you're no stranger to those (including ones you appear to support the stance of) using expletives to add emphasis in getting a point across. Case in point, the threads at http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/266381?do=post_view_threaded#266381 are not only a great example but directly representative of the central point here. Obviously, I concur with aballier's commentary. Later on, there's some grand yelling (usually involves caps lock) and screaming farther down along with monetary demands. Grab popcorn. I have this sad feeling you will cite this as being notice was given.
You didn't heed anyone's advice here nor respect their opinions. Poor paraphrasing and misquoting out of context repeatedly. Not only is this bad form, but is this your version of having an open mind and showing respect for differences in opinion?
Explain, constructively, how I may be more subjective and less neutral than you've claimed to be. Or anyone else in this thread for that matter you've had issue with.
Now, the original statements you had issue with me were wrong. I did not advocate creating their own overlay of the ebuild in question, just that they could, as a workaround, to keep the condition change if desired. Ultimately it is up to the OP as you have repeatedly stated you do not care. Masking was brought up repeatedly along with removal of libav-9999 and virtual/ffmpeg-9 since the OP only asserted keywording for ~amd64, not bypassing hardmasks. The person that made that assumption against the OP was you. The only thing I repeatedly gleam from your post versus being an entire re-iteration of all that came before it was on -* token use. That and some generalizations to stir the pot which you then opted to not handle in a non-inciteful manner. Everything combined from you is what prompted me to respond.
There are no x-portage packages currently installed on this system and when there were, they were due to google app ebuilds being broken on distfile checksums which have sometimes taken months to resolve. When did overlays become a cardinal sin? What do defaults versus configurations set within /etc/portage have to do with optimization, pre or post? Yes, that was somewhat broadly asked, but just as vague was your choice of stating optimization.
I'm going to ignore your latest puerile response.
_________________
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | Let's not comment on Navar's speech that way. |
I notice a distinct similarity between your posts, and rcweir on every LWN thread about LibreOffice. So much so, in fact, that I can copy replies to him verbatim instead of wasting my own effort on you.
| Quote: | Please, please, please stop this.
Yes, you never say anything actively nasty, and everything you say is factually accurate to within some arguable approximation. We all get it, and it's very clever, but enough. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navar wrote: | | I never asserted nor assumed you were a direct developer involved in this context (and didn't need to since I've not seen your name associated with it), |
There were a lot of "you" words in the part of the previous response that I quoted; if that was not your intention, I'm sorry but it came over to me that way.
| Navar wrote: | | you did continue to present yourself as an authority to speak for others decisions, however. |
That is because I am here to help the OP and explaining further questions that arose, as far as I am aware support and explanations are in their own nature objective; remember that I am here for support and clarification of the change as you can see in all my posts, not for a discussion or anything else.
| Navar wrote: | | I would sincerely hope that if moderators are viewing this thread closely that they have taken into context the whole of it, as would seem most appropriate. |
There is nothing wrong with this thread.
| Navar wrote: | | Being mentioned as an inappropriate post merely by disagreeing with a number of your generalizations is not something I expected to see as reasoning listed for me. |
Your post goes further than that; you're making arguments to me where there are none, literally shoving words down my throat (see further in this response, eg. "opponents") as well as resort to name calling (eg. "Pulseaudio developer"), that is certainly an offense. If you didn't want to offend me, then please clearly state out so because you're singling me out for no good reason; I'm merely here to help, and not to be annoyed by responses that come over as disrespectful. Similarly, if you think my responses were disrespectful to you, then I'm sincerely sorry; but I did not intend any such thing.
| Navar wrote: | | Tomwij wrote: | | You are way more subjective than I am; as you showed yourself, with a whole paragraph starting with "My personal stance" that is full of "!@#$". |
No. This I definitely did not state. Re-read what I stated again. Instead you are becoming further accusatory. |
You did make such a paragraph, but hey, it doesn't matter; ignoring that, I just want to make clear like I have stated multiple times that I do not intent to be (and am not) 1) subjective or 2) discussing the matter.
| Navar wrote: | | Also, had you true intentions of being respectful to your readers and those you argued against, you would have at least spelled out your acronyms once in common courtesy before use and avoided citing a one author book via informit as justification of your view of the facts rebuttal. |
That's still not a discussion, notice how half of this thread is that they are trying to make a discussion out of this; I'm going to put it out one last time although I have repeated it numerous times: I do not want to discuss this, I am merely here for giving people support and / or explanations.
| Navar wrote: | | We can only presume from the book cited which no reviews of which use your S(R)E specialized acronym that you meant Software Reliablity Engineering. Or perhaps you meant Google's definition, Site Reliability Engineering, who knows, why should we attempt guessing further. |
Or you could just ask it, instead of using it as a rebuttal point; it is Software (Re-)Engineering.
| Navar wrote: | | Either way, while remaining unclear, you continued to utilize that swinging as a bat at your opponents in some vain attempt to establish further credibility. |
It is you that use the word "opponents" here, not me; for me I just see the people here as users looking for help (the OP), an explanation (those asking for more information, or that misunderstood things) but now I have to conclude that some of you guys would rather like to have a discussion. Fine, but I will not be a part of it...
PS: Note the lack of the words ffmpeg and libav in my last two posts.
| Navar wrote: | | You didn't heed anyone's advice here nor respect their opinions. Poor paraphrasing and misquoting out of context repeatedly. Not only is this bad form, but is this your version of having an open mind and showing respect for differences in opinion? |
That's because I'm not holding a discussion; I do have a respect for anyone's opinions here, I solely neglect them here because I do not want to discuss anything and that doesn't mean I disagree with them.
Since the rest of your post is based on a misunderstanding and a communication failure between everyone involved here (including me); I'm not going to answer to the rest of your post, it is full of statements of things that I did not do.
Remember that I am feeling accused here as well and do not intend to accuse you instead; I do have the right to point out (not accuse) why I feel accused and I think that is an actual good thing to do, and that is because I hope you would see why I feel accused, I have nothing personally against you and would solely like to see this singling me out to stop.
Have good faith and a nice day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Multimedia
