Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

Trieforce · 2011-03-29 09:27:54

Basically it is the same story as with mplayer2. I think for now would be good to replace ffmpeg.

mundane · 2011-03-29 09:46:41

Trieforce wrote:

I think for now would be good to replace ffmpeg.
http://libav.org/

Wow, such a compelling argument you posted. The logic is simply flawless, and your remarkable insight is apparent for all to witness!

ahem... care to share your reasoning?

ffmpeg-mt has just been merged into ffmpeg, and thus into mplayer. I see no reason at the current time to switch to libav, and let's face it libav is a bunch of power hungry, conniving, scheming behind your back bunch of people.

ehlo · 2011-03-29 10:22:13

You may want to take a look at the existing topic on this

wonder · 2011-03-29 10:26:51

i really hate forks, so no. we are not going to replace ffmpeg with libav.

bangkok_manouel · 2011-03-29 10:37:15

if wonder hates forks then... let's use XFree86

/edit: typo drunkness

Last edited by bangkok_manouel (2011-03-29 10:38:01)

Grinch · 2011-03-29 14:11:29

I don't know the exact backstory to this but afaik there was an attempted domain takeover which sounds pretty nasty. Either way it now depends on which project the principal developers choose to support. End users will most likely go with whatever project delivers the most.

Trieforce · 2011-03-29 18:55:38

Grinch wrote:

I don't know the exact backstory to this but afaik there was an attempted domain takeover which sounds pretty nasty. Either way it now depends on which project the principal developers choose to support. End users will most likely go with whatever project delivers the most.

Let me explain it for you from the point of dark side. I remember it like if it was 1 year ago!

Michael Niedermayer maintainer make it so bad that ANY thing should be accepted PERSONALLY by him and ffmpeg is not a little unpopular project. So to include simple bug fixes developers were condemned to weight months... to simply correct the grammar error in text output. People didn't liked. The only secret is why didn't they just fork it from the start.

Sorry for my English.

So in few words:

Michael Niedermayer became a wikijerk.

Last edited by Trieforce (2011-03-29 18:56:24)

Inxsible · 2011-03-29 18:58:17

Trieforce wrote:

Grinch wrote:
I don't know the exact backstory to this but afaik there was an attempted domain takeover which sounds pretty nasty. Either way it now depends on which project the principal developers choose to support. End users will most likely go with whatever project delivers the most.

Let me explain it for you from the point of dark side. I remember it like if it was 1 year ago!
Michael Niedermayer maintainer make it so bad that ANY thing should be accepted PERSONALLY by him and ffmpeg is not a little unpopular project. So to include simple bug fixes developers were condemned to weight months... to simply correct the grammar error in text output. People didn't liked. The only secret is why didn't they just fork it from the start.
Sorry for my English.
So in few words:
Michael Niedermayer became a wikijerk.

Trieforce, do you have any quotes or references indicating that this happened. Otherwise, its highly inappropriate that you bash a FOSS developer just because you don't agree with him.

Trieforce · 2011-03-29 19:04:16

http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffm … 03547.html

Trieforce · 2011-03-29 19:07:07

wonder wrote:

i really hate forks, so no. we are not going to replace ffmpeg with libav.

I was thinking there is no place for prejudice in archlinux's developers heart!

Seriously, what happened is not good but at list take a fair look on it.

Trieforce · 2011-03-29 19:12:03

Trieforce wrote:

http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffm … 03547.html

http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffm … 03536.html

maintainer's answer.

mundane · 2011-03-29 19:14:33

LOL. Good trolling Trieforce.

Whether Michael was a good leader or not is rather subjective. Only if you are intimately involved with the project can you really be in a position to comment. You are obviously not in a position to comment on whether he was a good leader or not, and the "evidence" you gave was a posting by one of the members of the forking side, who _obviously_ are going to be saying bad things about Michael...

You say what happened is not good. Do you even consider the actions of the forking side?? They tried to take over a project and domain that does not belong to them, which is equivalent to a bunch of Linux kernel developers removing Linus Torvalds commit access and taking over ownership of the "Linux" trademark. You act as though the forking side are completely blameless and it is Michael that is evil. Well, Trieforce, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even know why I'm feeding the troll...

skottish · 2011-03-30 01:56:33

mundane wrote:

ffmpeg-mt has just been merged into ffmpeg, and thus into mplayer.

It was removed within days from FFmpeg. Start here and then read through the subsequent posts:

http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-deve … 09631.html

By the way, Alexander Strange who is heading the multithreaded branch is with libav...

*** What an ugly mess this has all become ***

Last edited by skottish (2011-03-30 01:59:03)

Trieforce · 2011-03-30 08:32:58

First I didnt said that that I with any of the sides.
Second
>They tried to take over a project and domain that does not belong to them, which is equivalent to a bunch of Linux kernel developers removing Linus Torvalds commit access and taking over ownership of the "Linux" trademark.
There are developers so "does not belong to them" is true.

>Linux kernel developers removing Linus Torvalds
Why would they?

Buddy, calm your self, I don't care how is right I just wish that arch developers would take a look at libav if they already didn't.

dolby · 2011-03-30 08:39:41

bangkok_manouel wrote:

if wonder hates forks then... let's use XFree86
/edit: typo drunkness

Interestingly, that was my first thought when i read wonder's reply too. But i wasn't drunk.

Last edited by dolby (2011-03-30 08:40:01)

Gusar · 2011-03-30 20:42:26

skottish wrote:

mundane wrote:
ffmpeg-mt has just been merged into ffmpeg, and thus into mplayer.
It was removed within days from FFmpeg.

No it wasn't. Well, it was, because the history was messed up. But then it was immediately checked in again, in a different way that did not mess up the history.

skottish · 2011-03-31 01:34:17

Gusar wrote:

skottish wrote:
mundane wrote:
ffmpeg-mt has just been merged into ffmpeg, and thus into mplayer.
It was removed within days from FFmpeg.
No it wasn't. Well, it was, because the history was messed up. But then it was immediately checked in again, in a different way that did not mess up the history.

I stand corrected.

Trieforce · 2011-04-02 13:46:51

So will be libav reviewed?

wonder · 2011-04-02 13:48:05

no

Anonymo · 2011-04-03 04:36:01

wonder wrote:

no

I forking Arch Linux then. From now on, LibArch Linux rules!

Trieforce · 2011-04-03 07:24:43

Anonymo wrote:

wonder wrote:
no
I forking Arch Linux then. From now on, LibArch Linux rules!

No first you should takeover it! Only after you can make a fork.

Thous kids... So much to learn.

zodmaner · 2011-04-03 07:25:03

Why do we need to "replace" ffmpeg? Why not just add libav package to AUR (or to Community if there is a TU who is willing to maintains it) and let people choose which one to use?

Trieforce · 2011-04-03 11:34:10

zodmaner wrote:

Why do we need to "replace" ffmpeg? Why not just add libav package to AUR (or to Community if there is a TU who is willing to maintains it) and let people choose which one to use?

Or even add it reopsitory and let people choose which one to use?

Grinch · 2011-04-04 05:30:52

The future of ffmpeg and/or libav isn't going to be decided here, I prefer not to pass judgement since again I don't know the backstory (and there are always two opposing views of such events as these). I believe the success or failure of either of these projects will be decided on technical merit/development progress.

DrZaius · 2011-04-04 23:06:50

Trieforce wrote:

Michael Niedermayer became a wikijerk.

Have you ever worked with him? I can only speak from personal experience, but I've never had any trouble with Michael concerning any of my contributions.

zodmaner wrote:

Why do we need to "replace" ffmpeg? Why not just add libav package to AUR (or to Community if there is a TU who is willing to maintains it) and let people choose which one to use?

It's already in AUR as libav-git, and although I maintain it I don't recommend using libav mostly because I don't agree with the motives behind the fork.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-03-29 09:27:54

Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#2 2011-03-29 09:46:41

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#3 2011-03-29 10:22:13

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#4 2011-03-29 10:26:51

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#5 2011-03-29 10:37:15

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#6 2011-03-29 14:11:29

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#7 2011-03-29 18:55:38

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#8 2011-03-29 18:58:17

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#9 2011-03-29 19:04:16

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#10 2011-03-29 19:07:07

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#11 2011-03-29 19:12:03

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#12 2011-03-29 19:14:33

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#13 2011-03-30 01:56:33

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#14 2011-03-30 08:32:58

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#15 2011-03-30 08:39:41

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#16 2011-03-30 20:42:26

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#17 2011-03-31 01:34:17

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#18 2011-04-02 13:46:51

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#19 2011-04-02 13:48:05

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#20 2011-04-03 04:36:01

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#21 2011-04-03 07:24:43

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#22 2011-04-03 07:25:03

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#23 2011-04-03 11:34:10

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#24 2011-04-04 05:30:52

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

#25 2011-04-04 23:06:50

Re: Will libav succeed ffmpeg?

Board footer