7 ms·

> libav [...] promoted as a concerted effort to create a better API True, but that was biased and unfair. Some developers leveraged their Debian influence to g

by bru 11y ago

> libav [...] promoted as a concerted effort to create a better API True, but that was biased and unfair. Some developers leveraged their Debian influence to get Debian to switch from ffmpeg to libav, but the technical merits were debatable. In the end, they came back to ffmpeg. This is mostly a political issue. Software-wise AFAIK ffmpeg has been integrating many changes from libav but the opposite is not true, making IMHO ffmpeg the right choice. Good article (2012) with in-depth history: http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html More recent (2015) short take on the matter, seems pretty biased though: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libav#Fork_from_FFmpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libav#Fork_from_FFmpeg The github link is on mpv wiki. mpv is a descendant of mplayer and mplayer2 (the latter being mostly dead). IMHO mpv is the best media player for any OS (lightweight, snappy, reads everything, better options and CLI than mplayer*, etc.).

kuschku 11y ago
Software-wise, ffmpeg is the more feature complete solution, obviously. But if you want a morally and ethically okay solution, with a cleaner codebase (but also NIH syndrome), libav might be the better solution. The same people who use free software for moral and ethical reasons would also choose libav.
- Bootvis 11y ago
  That's quite a claim, can you elaborate on that a bit? I remember reading some of the controversy but I don't remember the ffmpeg guys to be very bad.
- gmfawcett 11y ago
  "Morally and ethically okay" -- what do you mean by that? and why doesn't ffmpeg meet the same standard, in your opinion? I've read summaries of the libav fork, but I don't recall anyone raising issues of morality.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    The way the ffmpeg maintainer behaved – as malevolent dictator – in contrast to the more open development approach of libav, is a pretty big issue, don’t you think?
    - air 11y ago
      IMHO the hostile takeover of the ffmpeg project by the libav guys (Fabrice Bellard had to wield trademark to force them to rename the fork) and intense FUD campaign were much bigger issues.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        It’s not a takeover – it was a takeover when the trademark was used to force everyone to fork. But the majority of the project, the people owning the servers, technology, coding the most part, etc – those were the ones renaming to libav.
        2trill2spill 11y ago
        Your mad that the owner of a trademark told others they can't use the trademark?
        kuschku 11y ago
        I’m mad that a person, who bought a trademark for a project, then decided to act against the interest of the majority of the participants of the project,
        2trill2spill 11y ago
        Let me get this straight, your mad because Fabrice Bellard, the person who started ffmpeg, asserted his trademark on the libav folks because their fork initially used the name ffmpeg? Seeing as your the maintainer for QuasselDroid, How would you like it if a group of contributors wanted to take the project in a different direction then you, so they fork it, call their fork QuasselDroid, and then say your branch is immoral, like you have throughout this page, I doubt you would enjoy this, and if you owned the QuasselDroid trademark I'm sure you would use it too.
- danso 11y ago
  Sorry, what's wrong with using free software for moral and ethical reasons? I often do so because I don't feel like paying nor stealing commercial software. However, being so dependent on OSS has made me appreciate it and want to support it in what ways I can -- call it a moral imperative. Besides contributing bug reports and patches, I sometimes like using new libraries (or edge versions of existing software) if the creator, working freely, is trying to move the ball forward...having users who can provide feedback is a sort of moral support. In the case of libav...as an admitted casual, I'm thankful that ffmpeg exists, even if its API confuses me...I'm grateful enough to think that the status quo is just fine, whether I can rationalize it or not. However, I do find it admirable that some people (ostensibly) wanted to make what they think were forward-thinking changes, including doing the kind of cleanup that is generally under-appreciated and under-prioritized in all software. So if they're promising a transparent, interoperable interface...sure, I'll give it a try, and it will be for "moral" reasons in the sense of moral support. I've done the same with MariaDB (over MySQL) and haven't regretted it.
  - LukeShu 11y ago
    What's wrong with it is that FFmpeg and Libav are on equal footing in that regard; so using that argument in favor of one over the other is... nonsensical.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Nothing is wrong with that, but in a situation where one malevolent dictator acted against the will of every single other member of the development team, and forced them to fork, it’s hard to argue that his version is the moral one.
- Twirrim 11y ago
  If you're going to fork, you have to accept that you have exactly the same burden on you to keep up to date on security patches etc, at the very least. As a number of parties found, libav wasn't doing that, and regardless of any moral or ethical argument (for which I've mostly seen accusations and no actual evidence.. I'm largely taking it on face value that there were issues), security trumps pretty much everything.
jordigh 11y ago
> This is mostly a political issue. Let us not forget the reasons for libav. The ffmpeg development process was having a lot of problems due to very controversial decisions that its lead dev was taking. The libav fork has resulted in a restructuring of the ffmpeg development workflow. In this regard, libav is about as important as egcs was to gcc. Further reading: http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339 http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339
- davidgerard 11y ago
  > very controversial decisions that its lead dev was taking I have seen this claim frequently, but have never seen an actual list of such (and that link doesn't supply one). I get they didn't like the guy, but what were the terrible things he was supposed to have done?
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  It's interesting to note the parallel, but there are a few differences between ecgs vs gcc and libav vs ffmpeg. Perhaps the most important is that the ecgs fork announcement [1] was very diplomatically worded, intended to put an end to any bad feelings on either side, and recognized that FSF was completely in their right to be conservative when it came to developing gcc. Another difference is that ecgs really took off and eventually became the official gcc; libav doesn't look like it's doing the same. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/news/announcement.html http://gcc.gnu.org/news/announcement.html

by bru 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

Software-wise, ffmpeg is the more feature complete solution, obviously. But if you want a morally and ethically okay solution, with a cleaner codebase (but also NIH syndrome), libav might be the better solution. The same people who use free software for moral and ethical reasons would also choose libav.

Bootvis 11y ago
That's quite a claim, can you elaborate on that a bit? I remember reading some of the controversy but I don't remember the ffmpeg guys to be very bad.
gmfawcett 11y ago
"Morally and ethically okay" -- what do you mean by that? and why doesn't ffmpeg meet the same standard, in your opinion? I've read summaries of the libav fork, but I don't recall anyone raising issues of morality.
- kuschku 11y ago
  The way the ffmpeg maintainer behaved – as malevolent dictator – in contrast to the more open development approach of libav, is a pretty big issue, don’t you think?
  - air 11y ago
    IMHO the hostile takeover of the ffmpeg project by the libav guys (Fabrice Bellard had to wield trademark to force them to rename the fork) and intense FUD campaign were much bigger issues.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      It’s not a takeover – it was a takeover when the trademark was used to force everyone to fork. But the majority of the project, the people owning the servers, technology, coding the most part, etc – those were the ones renaming to libav.
      - 2trill2spill 11y ago
        Your mad that the owner of a trademark told others they can't use the trademark?
        kuschku 11y ago
        I’m mad that a person, who bought a trademark for a project, then decided to act against the interest of the majority of the participants of the project,
        2trill2spill 11y ago
        Let me get this straight, your mad because Fabrice Bellard, the person who started ffmpeg, asserted his trademark on the libav folks because their fork initially used the name ffmpeg? Seeing as your the maintainer for QuasselDroid, How would you like it if a group of contributors wanted to take the project in a different direction then you, so they fork it, call their fork QuasselDroid, and then say your branch is immoral, like you have throughout this page, I doubt you would enjoy this, and if you owned the QuasselDroid trademark I'm sure you would use it too.
danso 11y ago
Sorry, what's wrong with using free software for moral and ethical reasons? I often do so because I don't feel like paying nor stealing commercial software. However, being so dependent on OSS has made me appreciate it and want to support it in what ways I can -- call it a moral imperative. Besides contributing bug reports and patches, I sometimes like using new libraries (or edge versions of existing software) if the creator, working freely, is trying to move the ball forward...having users who can provide feedback is a sort of moral support. In the case of libav...as an admitted casual, I'm thankful that ffmpeg exists, even if its API confuses me...I'm grateful enough to think that the status quo is just fine, whether I can rationalize it or not. However, I do find it admirable that some people (ostensibly) wanted to make what they think were forward-thinking changes, including doing the kind of cleanup that is generally under-appreciated and under-prioritized in all software. So if they're promising a transparent, interoperable interface...sure, I'll give it a try, and it will be for "moral" reasons in the sense of moral support. I've done the same with MariaDB (over MySQL) and haven't regretted it.
- LukeShu 11y ago
  What's wrong with it is that FFmpeg and Libav are on equal footing in that regard; so using that argument in favor of one over the other is... nonsensical.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Nothing is wrong with that, but in a situation where one malevolent dictator acted against the will of every single other member of the development team, and forced them to fork, it’s hard to argue that his version is the moral one.
Twirrim 11y ago
If you're going to fork, you have to accept that you have exactly the same burden on you to keep up to date on security patches etc, at the very least. As a number of parties found, libav wasn't doing that, and regardless of any moral or ethical argument (for which I've mostly seen accusations and no actual evidence.. I'm largely taking it on face value that there were issues), security trumps pretty much everything.

jordigh 11y ago

> This is mostly a political issue. Let us not forget the reasons for libav. The ffmpeg development process was having a lot of problems due to very controversial decisions that its lead dev was taking. The libav fork has resulted in a restructuring of the ffmpeg development workflow. In this regard, libav is about as important as egcs was to gcc. Further reading: http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339 http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339

davidgerard 11y ago
> very controversial decisions that its lead dev was taking I have seen this claim frequently, but have never seen an actual list of such (and that link doesn't supply one). I get they didn't like the guy, but what were the terrible things he was supposed to have done?
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
It's interesting to note the parallel, but there are a few differences between ecgs vs gcc and libav vs ffmpeg. Perhaps the most important is that the ecgs fork announcement [1] was very diplomatically worded, intended to put an end to any bad feelings on either side, and recognized that FSF was completely in their right to be conservative when it came to developing gcc. Another difference is that ecgs really took off and eventually became the official gcc; libav doesn't look like it's doing the same. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/news/announcement.html http://gcc.gnu.org/news/announcement.html