On 08/08/2011 11:27 PM, Benjamin Larsson wrote: > On 08/08/2011 11:13 PM, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: >> 2011/8/8 Jindřich Makovička <[email protected]>: >>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 19:03, Alex Converse <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Plenty of other names were proposed in the last thread were fine: >>>> avtool, avengine, avconvert. I don't like the others as much but they >>>> are all better than "av." >>> I think avconvert is most reasonable. It is descriptive enough and it >>> doesn't collide with an antivirus/rootkit/trojan when googling for it. >>> (searching for avengine returns plenty of links to Panda Antivirus, >>> avtool.exe is apparently the Zenyth trojan). >>> >>> -- >>> Jindrich Makovicka >> I support avconvert. >> >> Jason > > An ok name for me also.
too long. av, avx, avenc are all better. You want to type the least number of letter and this is NOT imagemagick. If you are not ok with av please pick a name that is between 3 and 5 letters at most. so far the criticism regarding av is that is not representing an action and that is the prefix of the command. I'm not exactly sure why that given that: - av is replacing another nondescript word "ffmpeg" - being a prefix or sharing a prefix has not difference at all. The cons I have with names different than av are: - they are longer - trying to come up with a describing name they are partial in what av does. I'm not ignoring windows and searchability issues. the first depends on what malware writer will use next to hide his software, av is short it is among the combinations, regarding searchability, you do search for a full line. so av -c:v libx264 should trigger recipes as well. I'd try to solve that part by providing such recipes in our main website though. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
