On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:11 AM, shen long <wdlk...@gmail.com> wrote: > This discussion again hehe. I'm just a user and I don't think a > reunification is possible, I was reading the gentoo forums and it > became a flame war between users, most of them bashing Libav. Though I > like the name "libav" better. > > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html > > The way Libav started, it was clear that it was not a fork, but a > replacement, something meant to put and end to ffmpeg immediately, so > it needed a purely political position. A fork must rename its > applications AND libraries, so both original and deritive works can > coexist peacefully and users can choose what is best for them.
This discussion has gone way off topic. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss ffmpeg/libav, and don't feed the flames. > > > On 9/1/15, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:50:15 +0000 (UTC) >> Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: >> >>> wm4 <nfxjfg <at> googlemail.com> writes: >>> >>> > Oh yes, politically Libav wasn't successful. >>> >>> Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you: >> >> Oh come on, you misunderstand intentionally anyway. >> >> Or does Hanlon's razor come into effect? >> >> I really don't know what puts your hateful, ignorant posts into a >> better light. >> >> Maybe you could just try to make a real effort at reconciliation once, >> or even just understanding your opponent? >> >>> Gentoo and Debian did not switch from avconv >>> to FFmpeg for technical reasons, but only for >>> political reasons? >>> And, consequently, the changes from FFmpeg to >>> avconv were purely technically and not politically >>> motivated? >> >> Actually, most issues were probably caused by comparing ancient >> distro-packaged avconv versions to very recent ffmpeg releases (because >> especially Debian and Ubuntu really love... erm... packaging old >> software, and also slower Libav release cycles). >> >>> > Keep in mind that FFmpeg merged _everything_ >>> > from Libav >>> >>> I believe you know very well that this is not true. >> >> Oh, but it is true. Definitely. It's a fact. Some things were undone on >> merge, or parked as components not used by default (like duplicated >> encoders), but in the end basically everything was merged. Especially >> the beneficial changes. I haven't heard a single acknowledgment from >> you that Libav did good changes that were useful to FFmpeg too. >> >> Don't go around and spread lies (even if by omission). You're being >> incredibly dishonest. >> >>> And I find it funny that you wrote a long >>> justification above why everything had to be >>> merged and here, you use it as an argument why >>> FFmpeg is bad (that's at least how I read it). >>> >>> I was always very angry reading this argument >>> in your blog post and I always thought you are >>> among the strongest supporters of avconv. Funny >>> that this very blog post was one of the main >>> reasons why the distros switched... >> >> I don't have a blog and never had one. What the fuck are you even >> talking about? >> >> Your verbal "tic" of calling Libav avconv is also one of those WTFish >> things. >> >>> > So there are 3 ways to fix something: >>> > 1. Never change the API. Well, now you can't fix the API, have fun. >>> > 2. Add new APIs and maintain the old APIs concurrently. You will have >>> > to maintain a dozen of API revisions, and users will also have to >>> > deal with an API that provides the same thing under dozens of >>> > APIs. What could possibly go wrong? >>> > 3. You add improved APIs, deprecate the old ones, and finally remove >>> > them. >>> > >>> > Which do you pick? If it's 3, what is your complaint again? >>> >>> In reality, it is of course 3, but as said above, >>> users switched from avconv from FFmpeg because we >>> tried to do 2, so it cannot be as bad as you paint >>> it. >> >> But you agree that 3. is best? So what do you want to keep doing? Do >> you admit that 2. is not ideal? If so, why did you try to pursue it? To >> "beat" Libav? That would explain a lot of bullshit that was defended >> for political reasons, even though it was technically terrible. >> >> (My favorite thing is still the optional Libav ABI support.) >> >>> But I believe this was not the issue in this thread >>> afaiu. >>> >>> > The mess also slows down FFmpeg development. >>> >>> So do you want faster or slower development? >>> I fear you will have to decide... >> >> Faster of course, but not by just allowing low quality patches in for >> the sake of quickly adding obscure features. >> >> In fact, the goal is having an easily hackable codebase, so that >> contributors actually have it easier to write good patches, instead of >> having to write horrible hacks to reach their goals. Can you understand >> this statement? >> >>> [...] >>> >>> I don't really understand the rest of your post, >>> but it sounds very, very similar to what you >>> suggest so strongly (and with changing arguments!) >>> to "fix" your issue yesterday;-) >> >> If you mean the alpha issue, the only reason you rejected this change >> was because it was "slow", without even providing numbers. >> >>> In the end, there is only one question remaining: >>> If avconv did such a wonderful job, why didn't you >>> support them? Don't you agree (now) that they would >>> have needed it? >> >> I did send patches to Libav. >> >> But I guess by "support" you mean taking politically position for Libav >> and against FFmpeg. Sorry, but not all people are like you. >> >> (Also, didn't you write above that you always thought I was a strong >> supporter of Libav?) >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
