Re: [FFmpeg-user] What is the difference between versions of ffmpeg?
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:32:42 +0200, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 21:25 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
But my (rhetorical) question is, if the download page can link to the static builds for OS X, why doesn't it do that for Linux? It would be a big help if it did!
first: there exists no offical ffmpeg binary, for no OS at all whatever you find linked for binarys is just a pointer
Yet in the case of OS X, the link is from the ffmpeg.org download page. To the casual user, that sure looks like it's been given an "official" stamp of approval.
second: because on Linux you typically get packages from distribution or 3rd party repos or fire up a compiler / rpmbuild
It was getting the package from the "official" repo that caused me to get the libav version. It was using the third party repo that caused me to get an old version.
third: in case of Apple 98% of OSX users have zero technical knowledge and *rely* on a random binary found somewhere
And why would you assume that Linux users, particularly Ubuntu users, are any different? It might have been true ten years ago that almost all Linux users had a great deal of technical knowledge but since Ubuntu came along, anybody and their grandmother can use Linux, and never have to touch a command line if they don't want to. In my case, it's the whole thing about "git" that first mystifies me, and then the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions that don't assume any prior knowledge on my part. Otherwise it's like handing me eggs, flour, and sugar and saying "bake a cake" - I would have no idea where to begin and the results are probably going to be a hot mess.
but as said - there is *no official binary* at all and whenever you use one from a random source instead self built or from your distribution you do that at your own risk
Then in theory, the ffmpeg.org download page should not link to any of those at all, or at least should include a big disclaimer to that effect. But then again, any software you download is risky if you don't personally know the developers. If these are static builds that have worked for others and haven't caused anyone problems, I don't see any harm in making it easier for people to have access to such builds. And I definitely don't see why there should be a different standard for OS X users and Linux users. Not all OS X users have zero technical knowledge (I'm pretty sure the percentage is less than 99%!) and not all Linux users started coding at the age of 12. Each group has users at all levels, even if the Linux user base does tend to skew toward the more technically inclined.
Am 04.10.2014 um 21:58 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:32:42 +0200, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 21:25 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
But my (rhetorical) question is, if the download page can link to the static builds for OS X, why doesn't it do that for Linux? It would be a big help if it did!
first: there exists no offical ffmpeg binary, for no OS at all whatever you find linked for binarys is just a pointer
Yet in the case of OS X, the link is from the ffmpeg.org download page. To the casual user, that sure looks like it's been given an "official" stamp of approval.
the "casual user" would also not read any disclaimer or what not proven by expierience - even big and fat red letters in a box with yellow background and red borders are ignored by them
second: because on Linux you typically get packages from distribution or 3rd party repos or fire up a compiler / rpmbuild
It was getting the package from the "official" repo that caused me to get the libav version. It was using the third party repo that caused me to get an old version.
well, complain at Ubuntu why they are that stupid to replace ffmpeg, firefox, thunderbird and what not else with random crap
third: in case of Apple 98% of OSX users have zero technical knowledge and *rely* on a random binary found somewhere
And why would you assume that Linux users, particularly Ubuntu users, are any different? It might have been true ten years ago that almost all Linux users had a great deal of technical knowledge but since Ubuntu came along, anybody and their grandmother can use Linux, and never have to touch a command line if they don't want to.
don't get me wrong but a Ubuntu user is not a Linux user for me by definition, it as some random casual user insalled a random OS
In my case, it's the whole thing about "git" that first mystifies me, and then the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions that don't assume any prior knowledge on my part. Otherwise it's like handing me eggs, flour, and sugar and saying "bake a cake" - I would have no idea where to begin and the results are probably going to be a hot mess.
only because you refuse to learn i stared at the same point in 2006 and now maintain production servers while build most server RPMs on my own from source and a lot of other technical stuff far away from where i started with Linux years ago
but as said - there is *no official binary* at all and whenever you use one from a random source instead self built or from your distribution you do that at your own risk
Then in theory, the ffmpeg.org download page should not link to any of those at all
then you would have need to learn compile right form the start
or at least should include a big disclaimer to that effect. But then again, any software you download is risky if you don't personally know the developers. If these are static builds that have worked for others and haven't caused anyone problems, I don't see any harm in making it easier for people to have access to such builds. And I definitely don't see why there should be a different standard for OS X users and Linux users. Not all OS X users have zero technical knowledge (I'm pretty sure the percentage is less than 99%!) and not all Linux users started coding at the age of 12. Each group has users at all levels, even if the Linux user base does tend to skew toward the more technically inclined
that may all be true but don't change the fact ffpeg is source only and even if it is not for legal reasons because multimedia codecs are deep in patent issues, so you are allowed to write code and publish it but if it comes to binaries depending on where you live and how well known you are you end with one foot in the jail
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 22:11:18 +0200, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 21:58 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
In my case, it's the whole thing about "git" that first mystifies me, and then the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions that don't assume any prior knowledge on my part. Otherwise it's like handing me eggs, flour, and sugar and saying "bake a cake" - I would have no idea where to begin and the results are probably going to be a hot mess.
only because you refuse to learn
Well let me put it this way - suppose I told you that before you were allowed to drive a car, you had to know how to tear down and rebuild an engine. While that might be a useful skill, not everyone who drives a car wants to know anything about that. But if you had that skill, perhaps you might be condescending toward mere drivers, just as you have been to me in your insulting reply. I came to this list looking for help in USING ffmpeg, not in BUILDING ffmpeg. I was under the impression that this list was for ffmpeg USERS, not developers. Compiling software is something I have only had to do a handful of times in my life, and every time I have had to do it, the creators have been kind enough to provide explicit instructions of the type I mentioned in my previous message. I have no desire to write or compile software generally, and at my age (I am in my 60's) it is difficult to pick up new skills. I don't even feel entirely comfortable using the command line because I am always afraid I will break something, and I have done that before. And even if I did figure out how to do it once, it would not be a skill I would retain, because I might not need to do it again for a few years, or maybe ever.
i stared at the same point in 2006 and now maintain production servers while build most server RPMs on my own from source and a lot of other technical stuff far away from where i started with Linux years ago
Good for you. You learned this stuff because it was useful to you in life and for your employment. I doubt you would have put anywhere near that level of dedication into it if you had thought that it was something you might never need to know how to do again, unless you are just generally attracted to that sort of knowledge. We all have our areas of interest, and building software isn't one of mine, any more than getting under the hood of a car and fixing a motor. I don't know if you are a developer of this project or just a user or somewhere in between, but I certainly hope your views don't represent those of the ffmpeg development team. Anyway can we please just drop the insults? (And if by some chance this post gets me banned from the mailing list, I just want to say thank you to all who have helped me, it was much appreciated!)
Am 04.10.2014 um 22:45 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 22:11:18 +0200, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 04.10.2014 um 21:58 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
In my case, it's the whole thing about "git" that first mystifies me, and then the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions that don't assume any prior knowledge on my part. Otherwise it's like handing me eggs, flour, and sugar and saying "bake a cake" - I would have no idea where to begin and the results are probably going to be a hot mess.
only because you refuse to learn
Well let me put it this way - suppose I told you that before you were allowed to drive a car, you had to know how to tear down and rebuild an engine. While that might be a useful skill, not everyone who drives a car wants to know anything about that. But if you had that skill, perhaps you might be condescending toward mere drivers, just as you have been to me in your insulting reply.
there was no insulting intention if someone needs a binary he can use it if it is not available - well, build at your own or hire somebody that is not insulting - that is the thruth
I came to this list looking for help in USING ffmpeg, not in BUILDING ffmpeg. I was under the impression that this list was for ffmpeg USERS, not developers. Compiling software is something I have only had to do a handful of times in my life, and every time I have had to do it, the creators have been kind enough to provide explicit instructions of the type I mentioned in my previous message. I have no desire to write or compile software generally, and at my age (I am in my 60's) it is difficult to pick up new skills. I don't even feel entirely comfortable using the command line because I am always afraid I will break something, and I have done that before. And even if I did figure out how to do it once, it would not be a skill I would retain, because I might not need to do it again for a few years, or maybe ever.
get rid of "I don't even feel entirely comfortable using the command line because I am always afraid I will break something" because it is wrong - with the commandline you at least have a chance to type "history" and in case of seek help provide what you typed cick on a button and you have no clue what happens behind the scenes and if it does not end in a result you like nobody probably knows the state of whatever to offer help
i stared at the same point in 2006 and now maintain production servers while build most server RPMs on my own from source and a lot of other technical stuff far away from where i started with Linux years ago
Good for you. You learned this stuff because it was useful to you in life and for your employment. I doubt you would have put anywhere near that level of dedication into it if you had thought that it was something you might never need to know how to do again, unless you are just generally attracted to that sort of knowledge. We all have our areas of interest, and building software isn't one of mine, any more than getting under the hood of a car and fixing a motor.
no, i learned that stuff because i was interested in it otherwise i could have stayed at Windows frankly i learned the whole IT stuff because i was interested and as i wnet to a shop to buy my first PC the only reaon was "can i burn a Audio CD with only the tracks i want in the order i want to play it in my car" that i later switched to IT as daily job was nothing but play around and stay interested
I don't know if you are a developer of this project or just a user or somewhere in between, but I certainly hope your views don't represent those of the ffmpeg development team.
as it is the users list i am just a user
Anyway can we please just drop the insults?
again: there was no insult at all * the project don't offer any binary * so there is no binary download * your question was "where to get a binary" * the answer is: whereever someone has taken the source, built one offered the result for others
(And if by some chance this post gets me banned from the mailing list, I just want to say thank you to all who have helped me, it was much appreciated!)
no need to consider get banned by speaking frank - hopefully
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 23:09:47 +0200 "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
there was no insulting intention
Well, that wasn't how it came across, but I'll accept that you didn't do it intentionally.
if someone needs a binary he can use it if it is not available - well, build at your own or hire somebody
that is not insulting - that is the thruth
Except that it leaves out the third, most reasonable option - use the static build that someone else has already made the effort to create. Maybe YOU would not do that, for whatever reasons. That's certainly your prerogative. My original point was that I don't see why anyone thinks that it's perfectly fine to give OS X users a static build, but hide it from the Linux users until someone is kind enough to mention it in a forum such as this one. Either all the static builds should be linked from the download page, or none of them should. I would definitely prefer the former, because it makes it a lot easier on users who don't have your level of technical savvy.
get rid of "I don't even feel entirely comfortable using the command line because I am always afraid I will break something" because it is wrong - with the commandline you at least have a chance to type "history" and in case of seek help provide what you typed
Just because I can see what I typed doesn't mean I can fix it. Case in point, when I installed ffmpeg (or libav masquerading as ffmpeg) from the Debian repository, it brought in a whole bunch of useless dependencies that I now realize I don't need. But removing that version of ffmpeg didn't get rid of them, so now I am stuck with them.
cick on a button and you have no clue what happens behind the scenes and if it does not end in a result you like nobody probably knows the state of whatever to offer help
I can't think of any instance where that has actually happened to me unless I stupidly clicked the wrong button.
as it is the users list i am just a user
So why are you so interested in keeping the static builds hidden from Linux users?
* the project don't offer any binary * so there is no binary download * your question was "where to get a binary"
Now you are putting words in my mouth, figuratively speaking. I would have NEVER used the word "binary" in that way. In fact I would not have known to ask for a static build prior to this thread. Anyway, if the project doesn't offer it then what exactly is being offered to OS X users?
* the answer is: whereever someone has taken the source, built one offered the result for others
And when someone does that, IMHO it ought to be linked to from the download page, unless there is some compelling reason not to.
no need to consider get banned by speaking frank - hopefully.
You would be surprised what little bit of disagreement it takes to get you banned in some forums.
Am 04.10.2014 um 23:32 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
Just because I can see what I typed doesn't mean I can fix it. Case in point, when I installed ffmpeg (or libav masquerading as ffmpeg) from the Debian repository, it brought in a whole bunch of useless dependencies that I now realize I don't need. But removing that version of ffmpeg didn't get rid of them, so now I am stuck with them.
no you are not and honestly wonder that Debian/Ubuntu don't remove them since it is a repeated flame against RPM based distribution that they don't (which is not true, yum do for a long time if configured correctly as well as "package-cleanup --leaves" lists all packages which can be removed because nothing else depends on them and after remove the first one it offers other "freed" packages) put "clean_requirements_on_remove=1" in /etc/yum.conf on RHEL/CentOS/Fedora as exmaple is the key that if you install package a) which pulls in b, c, d, e, f and 1 hour later you decide to remove a) the others are automatically selected to be removed until no other package you installed in the meantime requires them http://askubuntu.com/questions/28132/removal-of-unused-dependencies-using-au...
cick on a button and you have no clue what happens behind the scenes and if it does not end in a result you like nobody probably knows the state of whatever to offer help
I can't think of any instance where that has actually happened to me unless I stupidly clicked the wrong button.
as it is the users list i am just a user
So why are you so interested in keeping the static builds hidden from Linux users?
i am not interested - honestly i don't care my RPM SEPC is fine and i just put an new tarball there and rebuild
* the project don't offer any binary * so there is no binary download * your question was "where to get a binary"
Now you are putting words in my mouth, figuratively speaking. I would have NEVER used the word "binary" in that way. In fact I would not have known to ask for a static build prior to this thread.
Anyway, if the project doesn't offer it then what exactly is being offered to OS X users?
just a link to somebody who builds it
* the answer is: whereever someone has taken the source, built one offered the result for others
And when someone does that, IMHO it ought to be linked to from the download page, unless there is some compelling reason not to.
no need to consider get banned by speaking frank - hopefully.
You would be surprised what little bit of disagreement it takes to get you banned in some forums
i am not - but i don#t support that attitude :-)
...the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions... You aren't alone. I've mentioned this problem, on this list, many times. Most open source software uses a combination of commandline tools, with scripts and code in various formats and languages required to build it. This is emphatically not simple - at least not as simple as loading a Visual Studio project in Windows. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to do it.
The open source community deals with this situation by denying that it exists and is often inexcusably impolite:
only because you refuse to learn ...like that. There is often a complete lack of respect for any form of skill or ability other than software engineering, to the point that some projects (ffmpeg included) have suffered some quite egregious technical omissions because they simply won't take anyone's input.
Don't feel bad. The technical problems we're discussing here, and the attitude problem underlying them, are one of the main things holding back open source software from what could be its full potential. P
Am 05.10.2014 um 00:22 schrieb Phil Rhodes:
...the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions... You aren't alone. I've mentioned this problem, on this list, many times. Most open source software uses a combination of commandline tools, with scripts and code in various formats and languages required to build it. This is emphatically not simple - at least not as simple as loading a Visual Studio project in Windows. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to do it.
then just use a source for a binary like a distribution
The open source community deals with this situation by denying that it exists and is often inexcusably impolite
it does not exist - the developers offer *their work* in form of source code - who do you think you are to demand them offer a "just happy to use" binary additional to the development work?
only because you refuse to learn ...like that. There is often a complete lack of respect for any form of skill or ability other than software engineering, to the point that some projects (ffmpeg included) have suffered some quite egregious technical omissions because they simply won't take anyone's input.
you still don't get it * just intsall the packge from your distribution * if it don't fullfill your needs complain there * if you don't want to complain there just learn to build the source
Don't feel bad. The technical problems we're discussing here, and the attitude problem underlying them, are one of the main things holding back open source software from what could be its full potential
it has the full potential * just use pre-built packages from the sources * hire one to build them for your needs * learn to build them at your own well, finally you could offer enough money to a upstream developer for build a binary at your your needs try the same with closed source and look how far you get
- who do you think you are to demand them offer a "just happy to use" binary additional to the development work? No - who do you think you are to run around screaming at people that they "refuse to learn"?
You created this problem. If you want less hassle from users, make the software easier to use. If you can't be bothered, deal with the fallout. Either way, you are not the boss, you are not in a position of authority, and it is not your place to tell peopl eoff. P
Am 05.10.2014 um 00:56 schrieb Phil Rhodes:
- who do you think you are to demand them offer a "just happy to use" binary additional to the development work? No - who do you think you are to run around screaming at people that they "refuse to learn"?
You created this problem. If you want less hassle from users, make the software easier to use
i made clear that *i am a user* so the problem is on your side
i made clear that *i am a user* so the problem is on your side No, you're the one throwing insults around on a mailing list. Examine your own behaviour. If you don't like the fact that people find compiling ffmpeg difficult, make ffmpeg easier to compile. If you don't want to do that, that's absolutely fine, you aren't required to - but you may not reasonably tell other people off for complaining. Their complaints are justified. P
Phil Rhodes <phil_rhodes <at> rocketmail.com> writes:
i made clear that *i am a user* so the problem is on your side
No, you're the one throwing insults around on a mailing list. Examine your own behaviour.
Stop bullying other users here, this is not acceptable!
If you don't like the fact that people find compiling ffmpeg difficult, make ffmpeg easier to compile.
FFmpeg compiles on many common and a few very unusual systems with "./configure && make" if you have a compiler installed, I don't think you can make compilation significantly easier. If compilation does not succeed on any platform, please tell us! And please stop trolling here, it is not welcome! Carl Eugen
Am 05.10.2014 um 01:04 schrieb Phil Rhodes:
i made clear that *i am a user* so the problem is on your side No, you're the one throwing insults around on a mailing list. Examine your own behaviour
my behaviour is fine - honestly you have no clue how it sounds if i forget about it!
If you don't like the fact that people find compiling ffmpeg difficult, make ffmpeg easier to compile
why should i? as said i am a user and managed to build from the sources nobody is forced to do so - everybody can use distribution packages *but* complain why they are not recent enough won't work - pay the distributions package mainatiner, wait until he updates them, update your distribution version to get newer package or just RTFM and build it at your own all valid options exists
If you don't want to do that, that's absolutely fine, you aren't required to
fine
but you may not reasonably tell other people off for complaining
surely - the same way reasonable as you complain over years
Their complaints are justified
no they are not, proven by the following output which did take exatcly 20 seconds work and wait until the build is finished [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ ffmpeg ffmpeg version 2.4.1 Copyright (c) 2000-2014 the FFmpeg developers
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:56:06 +0000 (UTC), "Phil Rhodes" <phil_rhodes@rocketmail.com> wrote:
- who do you think you are to demand them offer a "just happy to use" binary additional to the development work?
Reindl Harald: And again, you come across as an insulting ass. Look, nobody forces the developers to offer anything. But when you put software out into the world, whether it is free or something you have to buy, and whether it is for Linux, OS X, or Windows, people are going to give their opinion and say what they do and don't like about it. If getting a current version is harder than with other similar software, people have a right to note that and say they wish it were different. What I want to know is, who the hell do you think YOU are to insult other users who don't happen to have your level of Linux knowledge and who may not care to learn all the things you have? You have contributed absolutely nothing to this discussion other than to get people hot under the collar. In my opinion it appears that you may fit the classic definition of an Internet troll. Particularly so because you are just a user of this software, like everyone else here, and therefore cannot speak with any authority.
No - who do you think you are to run around screaming at people that they "refuse to learn"?
You created this problem. If you want less hassle from users, make the software easier to use. If you can't be bothered, deal with the fallout. Either way, you are not the boss, you are not in a position of authority, and it is not your place to tell peopl eoff.
Thank you, Phil. I almost said something earlier when I thought maybe he was a developer (because I did not think that just another user would have the unmitigated gall to talk this way) that if this was how the developers acted toward people, I could fully understand why the project was forked. But I thought I had better ask if he were a developer first, and I am glad I did! Now that I know he's only a user I think he has a hell of a lot of nerve to talk to anyone the way he's been carrying on today (not that I would think any more highly of such conduct if he were a developer, but at least a developer would have more status to talk that way). I am done with this. The truth is that as long as the static builds are available, that is all I want or need. I did learn a few things from some of the participants and I do appreciate the help, but I am not real likely to ever try to build ffmpeg. For one thing I have absolutely zero desire to do that, and for another thing, it seems to me like the current version ought to be offered in the repositories (and clearly marked as such, not obfuscated among a whole bunch of choices that would leave anyone bewildered as to which to pick), and hopefully someday that will be the case. However, I have no desire to continue this thread, since it has become extremely counter-productive.
Reindl Harald: And again, you come across as an insulting ass. Look, nobody forces the developers to offer anything. But when you put software out into the world, whether it is free or something you have to buy, and whether it is for> Linux, OS X, or Windows, people are going to give their opinion and say what they do and don't like about it. If getting a current version is harder than with other similar software, people have a right to note that and say they wish it were> different. What I want to know is, who the hell do you think YOU are to insult other users who don't happen to have your level of Linux knowledge and who may not care to learn all the things you have? You have contributed absolutely nothing to> this discussion other than to get people hot under the collar. In my opinion it appears that you may fit the classic definition of an Internet troll. Particularly so because you are just a user of this software, like everyone else here, and> therefore cannot speak with any authority.
I think this bears repeating for its absolute accuracy. P
Am 05.10.2014 um 01:38 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:56:06 +0000 (UTC), "Phil Rhodes" <phil_rhodes@rocketmail.com> wrote:
- who do you think you are to demand them offer a "just happy to use" binary additional to the development work?
Reindl Harald: And again, you come across as an insulting ass Look, nobody forces the developers to offer anything
Phil tries to do for many years here
But when you put software out into the world, whether it is free or something you have to buy, and whether it is for Linux, OS X, or Windows, people are going to give their opinion and say what they do and don't like about it.
and other people are going to give their opinion like i did - so what you just could have aid "thank you for now knowing that" after i explained you that upstream just offers source code and nothing else, well i even explained you the legal side why this can't change complain at the institutions responsible for patents if somebody builds a static binary of ffmpeg with x264 then it is his choice and risk - doing that in the wrong country or piss up the wrong people holding patent rights may bring him straigt to jail
If getting a current version is harder than with other similar software
other free software in Linux distributions is built the same way as ffmpeg and if they are renect just say thank you to the package maintainer
people have a right to note that and say they wish it were different.
you still don't get it - if the version your distribution offers is not recent enough *complain there* because it's the apckage maintainers fault not to keep on track and nobodys else he did build the package within the repos from the upstream sources and he is repsonsible to update them - nobody else - if you want rececnt binaries complain there or just build them at your own
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Phil Rhodes <phil_rhodes@rocketmail.com> wrote:
...the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions... You aren't alone. I've mentioned this problem, on this list, many times. Most open source software uses a combination of commandline tools, with scripts and code in various formats and languages required to build it. This is emphatically not simple - at least not as simple as loading a Visual Studio project in Windows. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to do it.
The open source community deals with this situation by denying that it exists and is often inexcusably impolite:
only because you refuse to learn ...like that. There is often a complete lack of respect for any form of skill or ability other than software engineering, to the point that some projects (ffmpeg included) have suffered some quite egregious technical omissions because they simply won't take anyone's input.
Don't feel bad. The technical problems we're discussing here, and the attitude problem underlying them, are one of the main things holding back open source software from what could be its full potential.
P
"Software engineering"? I repeat: I compiled FFpmeg following the instructions on the site and that was the very first time I compiled anything. It worked at the first try, on an eeePC with an Atom N450. Francesco
Am 05.10.2014 um 00:31 schrieb francesco scaglione:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Phil Rhodes <phil_rhodes@rocketmail.com> wrote:
...the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions... You aren't alone. I've mentioned this problem, on this list, many times. Most open source software uses a combination of commandline tools, with scripts and code in various formats and languages required to build it. This is emphatically not simple - at least not as simple as loading a Visual Studio project in Windows. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to do it.
The open source community deals with this situation by denying that it exists and is often inexcusably impolite:
only because you refuse to learn ...like that. There is often a complete lack of respect for any form of skill or ability other than software engineering, to the point that some projects (ffmpeg included) have suffered some quite egregious technical omissions because they simply won't take anyone's input.
Don't feel bad. The technical problems we're discussing here, and the attitude problem underlying them, are one of the main things holding back open source software from what could be its full potential.
"Software engineering"? I repeat: I compiled FFpmeg following the instructions on the site and that was the very first time I compiled anything. It worked at the first try, on an eeePC with an Atom N450
don't waste your time - Phil is known for comlain against ffmpeg and if he would have used all the time to write complaints for just learn how to deal with build it he could offer pre-compiled binaries for every OS out there P.S.: i am known for not be nice always but at least i do my homework
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 21:58:23 +0200 skyscanner@gmx.ca wrote: [...]
and then the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions that don't assume any prior knowledge on my part. Otherwise it's like handing me eggs, flour, and sugar and saying "bake a cake" - I would have no idea where to begin and the results are probably going to be a hot mess.
--- I can assure you that following these instructions it is quite simple to compile a recent version of FFmpeg, even without experience (it was my case): https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/CompilationGuide/Ubuntu
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:57:32 +0200, "francesco scaglione" <scaglione.francesco@neuf.fr> wrote:
I can assure you that following these instructions it is quite simple to compile a recent version of FFmpeg, even without experience (it was my case): https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/CompilationGuide/Ubuntu
That would be true except for this: "Compilation & Installation You can compile ffmpeg to your liking. If you do not require certain encoders you may skip the relevant section and then remove the appropriate ./configure option in FFmpeg. For example, if libopus is not needed, then skip that section and then remove --enable-libopus from the Install FFmpeg section." Now if only they would follow that up by saying, "If you don't know which encoders you need or how to use the configuration options, here is how to build a 'standard' version of ffmpeg...", then this page might actually be useful. The problem is that when you offer a lot of options, people such as myself that have no clue what those options do get lost really fast. All I want and need is a standard version that will work. However, if someone has any idea of what they actually want and need, that seems like a pretty thorough guide. Basically, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is this: If I go to the download page and it sends me to http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ and I add the repository suggested (deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org wheezy main non-free) to my /etc/apt/sources.list, why is it supplying an old version? This, I think, is the crux of the matter. Had I received a current version from that source, we would have not had any of this discussion.
Am 04.10.2014 um 23:48 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
Now if only they would follow that up by saying, "If you don't know which encoders you need or how to use the configuration options, here is how to build a 'standard' version of ffmpeg...", then this page might actually be useful. The problem is that when you offer a lot of options, people such as myself that have no clue what those options do get lost really fast. All I want and need is a standard version that will work.
define "standard" * all supported codecs * minimized supported codecs * if minimized which ones
However, if someone has any idea of what they actually want and need, that seems like a pretty thorough guide
you need an idea otherwise you end what about you caomplained before "the package i installed pulled a ton of dependencies" - so in other words "default" would support only limited codecs or pull a lot of dependencies with their cahin-deps there is not much between and no matter what you do the next day somebody would complain why all that deps are required or a static binary is 100 MB large or why the codec he needs right now is not supported
Basically, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is this:
If I go to the download page and it sends me to http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ and I add the repository suggested (deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org wheezy main non-free) to my /etc/apt/sources.list, why is it supplying an old version?
that answer is *really* easy - because who ever did built that binary don't care or has no time - if you want soemthing else you need to do that at your own - that's the benefit of open source: you can do so, in case of closed source all that questions would not exist
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:48 PM, <skyscanner@gmx.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:57:32 +0200, "francesco scaglione" < scaglione.francesco@neuf.fr> wrote:
I can assure you that following these instructions it is quite simple to compile a recent version of FFmpeg, even without experience (it was my case): https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/CompilationGuide/Ubuntu
That would be true except for this:
"Compilation & Installation
You can compile ffmpeg to your liking. If you do not require certain encoders you may skip the relevant section and then remove the appropriate ./configure option in FFmpeg. For example, if libopus is not needed, then skip that section and then remove --enable-libopus from the Install FFmpeg section."
Now if only they would follow that up by saying, "If you don't know which encoders you need or how to use the configuration options, here is how to build a 'standard' version of ffmpeg...", then this page might actually be useful. The problem is that when you offer a lot of options, people such as myself that have no clue what those options do get lost really fast. All I want and need is a standard version that will work.
However, if someone has any idea of what they actually want and need, that seems like a pretty thorough guide.
Basically, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is this:
If I go to the download page and it sends me to http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ and I add the repository suggested (deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org wheezy main non-free) to my /etc/apt/sources.list, why is it supplying an old version?
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. Had I received a current version from that source, we would have not had any of this discussion.
Another thing you may want to keep in mind is that many would consider a "standard" version of FFmpeg of little use out of the box. The reason for this is the FFmpeg source code does not include popular encoders like x264 and FAAC (i.e. h.264 video encoding and AAC audio encoding). In order to use these, you must download their sources, compile them first and then compile FFmpeg after you've configured it to look for the appropriate libraries (libx264 and libfaac, for example). Sometimes, but not always, these libraries are installed on your system so you can have FFmpeg dynamically link to them. However, for my own use, I always statically link the ffmpeg executable so I can move it from machine to machine without having to worry about what libraries are installed on each system. I do this with Mac OS X, but the same idea applies to Linux. It would be nice to have one place where a Mac, Linux and Windows binary can be downloaded, but because of licensing and the need to use code from separate projects, this gets complicated. :-(
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 23:48:25 +0200 skyscanner@gmx.ca wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:57:32 +0200, "francesco scaglione" <scaglione.francesco@neuf.fr> wrote:
I can assure you that following these instructions it is quite simple to compile a recent version of FFmpeg, even without experience (it was my case): https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/CompilationGuide/Ubuntu
That would be true except for this:
"Compilation & Installation
You can compile ffmpeg to your liking. If you do not require certain encoders you may skip the relevant section and then remove the appropriate ./configure option in FFmpeg. For example, if libopus is not needed, then skip that section and then remove --enable-libopus from the Install FFmpeg section."
Now if only they would follow that up by saying, "If you don't know which encoders you need or how to use the configuration options, here is how to build a 'standard' version of ffmpeg...", then this page might actually be useful. The problem is that when you offer a lot of options, people such as myself that have no clue what those options do get lost really fast. All I want and need is a standard version that will work.
However, if someone has any idea of what they actually want and need, that seems like a pretty thorough guide.
Basically, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is this:
If I go to the download page and it sends me to http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ and I add the repository suggested (deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org wheezy main non-free) to my /etc/apt/sources.list, why is it supplying an old version?
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. Had I received a current version from that source, we would have not had any of this discussion.
About compiling: just try with the options enabled there, why bother for the moment? About deb-multimedia: they have now even a wheezy-backports repository, and there you can get a more recent version. Have a look: http://www.deb-multimedia.org/dists/stable-backports/main/binary-amd64/packa... Francesco
On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 00:09:38 +0200, "francesco scaglione" <scaglione.francesco@neuf.fr> wrote:
About deb-multimedia: they have now even a wheezy-backports repository, and there you can get a more recent version. Have a look:
http://www.deb-multimedia.org/dists/stable-backports/main/binary-amd64/packa...
Thank you! For some reason, when I saw the word "backports" I thought they were talking about older versions. Don't know why, I just did. Now that I know better, I'll keep it in mind if I ever have the need to seek out a newer version.
Am 05.10.2014 um 01:54 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 00:09:38 +0200, "francesco scaglione" <scaglione.francesco@neuf.fr> wrote:
About deb-multimedia: they have now even a wheezy-backports repository, and there you can get a more recent version. Have a look:
http://www.deb-multimedia.org/dists/stable-backports/main/binary-amd64/packa...
Thank you! For some reason, when I saw the word "backports" I thought they were talking about older versions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backporting backport means "we took functionality from later distribution releases to a older one" in general - specifically backport in context of software means "we found a bug in the recent version, it turned out that it existed for years and we backported the fix to older releases too so that you don't need to force a major update"
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:58 PM, <skyscanner@gmx.ca> wrote:
In my case, it's the whole thing about "git" that first mystifies me, and then the process of compiling from source. I know there are Linux users that do that, but I can only do it if there are very clear, explicit, line by line instructions that don't assume any prior knowledge on my part. Otherwise it's like handing me eggs, flour, and sugar and saying "bake a cake" - I would have no idea where to begin and the results are probably going to be a hot mess.
To use your cake analogy, there are very many ways to end up with a cake. You can go to the store and buy one (Quicktime Pro). The cake should be just how you like it, and you can ask people to make it just how you like it before you buy it. You can go to the store and buy cake mix (Handbrake). This is cheaper, but you need to do some of the mixing and baking yourself. Alternatively, you can go get eggs, flour and sugar and mix it and bake it yourself (ffmpeg). This is the option you have chosen. If you don't like the steps involved, go to the store instead. ffmpeg is open source software delivered as source code. If you have complaints about how binaries of it are packaged, you are complaining in the wrong place - talk to the packager. If you have complaints about having to compile it to get a supported version, you're complaining in the wrong case - no-one here cares, it is part of the cost of using ffmpeg that we all (well, apart from Phil) agree to. Cheers Tom
"Tom Evans" <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alternatively, you can go get eggs, flour and sugar and mix it and bake it yourself (ffmpeg). This is the option you have chosen. If you don't like the steps involved, go to the store instead.
What on earth are you beating this dead horse for? You're taking the entire analogy to the ridiculous.
ffmpeg is open source software delivered as source code. If you have complaints about how binaries of it are packaged, you are complaining in the wrong place - talk to the packager.
As a user of the software - remember, this was supposed to be a list for ffmpeg USERS, though I am starting to think that is false advertising - all I was wanting to know is how to get a newer version. Someone told me about a precompiled static version. It works. I will use it. I didn't have to buy it. Problem solved. And you are being utterly ridiculous beyond belief when you suggest I talk to the packager. For one thing, as long as I have the static version, I couldn't care less what the packager does. For another thing, as a user, I have no idea who the packager is. And even if I did, they are probably worse Linux snobs than some of the people in this group seem to be, and I would get the same crap I am getting here, only worse, because after all, why should they listen to a mere user? Never mind that they make their software for users, this attitude that many Linux developers seem to have is something you never see in the Windows world. They make the software, and presumably want people to use it (otherwise they should keep it to themselves), but it's like they can't even take a constructive suggestion for improvement, let alone anything that might be construed as a criticism. Or, they want you to file a bug report or feature request and then maybe five years later they will get around to actually acting on it, by which time I've usually moved on and found something better.
If you have complaints about having to compile it to get a supported version, you're complaining in the wrong case - no-one here cares, it is part of the cost of using ffmpeg that we all (well, apart from Phil) agree to.
Phil and ME. Don't forget me. I am damn proud to be in Phil's camp in this case, and I had never heard of him prior to encountering this list. Phil has his head screwed on straight, and you trolls that want to make a mountain out of a molehill really need to find a hobby or something. I'm sure now you are going to try and convince me that using the static build is wrong somehow, and I'll tell you right now, I don't care. It works, it solves my problem, and I am happy with it. The only thing I am not happy about is some of you guys that just have to be so preachy even though none of you have identified yourself as a developer, and therefore you are attempting to speak with authority you don't have. And anyway, I'm not complaining about having to compile it to get a supported version because I don't care if it's an unsupported version, as long as it will do the one thing I need it to do. If I can find a version of ffmpeg that does that, I'll use it. If I could have found a version of libav, or whatever that forked version is, that does what I want I would have happily used that. I don't care about all this internal drama, I don't care about what is considered "correct" by you or anyone else, I don't care whether you or anyone else thinks I ought to learn how to do something that I have zero interest in, and frankly, if anyone feels I am wrong in thinking this way, I don't care what you think. I don't care because you are also just mere users like me, and therefore anything you may have to say on the subject is your your own opinion, and I happen to think differently. If I make a suggestion or a criticism, and you think I'm wrong, I don't care because you are not the person who would ultimately act on or reject it. And if no one here cares, then why are there so many useless messages posted in this thread, that aren't helping anyone and that aren't going to change my mind in the slightest? Are your lives so empty that posting crap like this is all you have to do? Just stop. Because you are typing to no one that cares! And you could put your time to better use by actually helping people, instead of creating a pile of rotting, putrid horsemeat! (No offense intended toward the people who actually did have helpful suggestions). And now I am going to unsubscribe from this list, at least for a while, because I simply don't care to participate it this type of unproductive and unhelpful discussion, and I don't even want to read any more of this garbage.
Am 06.10.2014 um 12:08 schrieb skyscanner@gmx.ca:
I couldn't care less what the packager does I don't care because I don't care if it's an unsupported version I don't care because you are not the And if no one here cares Because you are typing to no one that cares!
And now I am going to unsubscribe from this list
thank you
thank you You consider this a victory?
participants (7)
-
Carl Eugen Hoyos -
francesco scaglione -
Phil Rhodes -
Reindl Harald -
skyscanner＠gmx.ca -
Thomas Worth -
Tom Evans