2 ms·

Not only is this a contentious idea, it's positively absurd on its face. Your logic dictates that every tool with similar goals cannot be maintained separately

by dimino 10y ago

Not only is this a contentious idea, it's positively absurd on its face. Your logic dictates that every tool with similar goals cannot be maintained separately, and that a single person or group should hold a complete monopoly on how we do any given thing in computing. VLC and MPlayer were two of "10 different video players" when they were made, and a great many other video players, some significantly older and with higher support, were eventually supplanted by them (at least VLC, anywway). In your little model here, that would never have happened. You'd utterly kill innovation and progress with this. I cannot overstate how mistaken you are here, it is completely and wholly a terrible idea, at every turn. Maybe there's something I'm not getting, I certainly hope so.

peterwwillis 10y ago
I used MPlayer and VLC as an example of good development. You then say that if they had been developed the way I describe, they would not exist. But they were in fact developed the way I described. And they are not imaginary. And there is no free software monopoly on video players (not coincidentally because free software was designed to kill monopolies in the first place). If you can somehow re-state this incredibly convoluted argument maybe we can re-address it, but i'm pretty sure you only reinforced my point.
- dimino 10y ago
  > You then say that if they had been developed the way I describe, they would not exist. But they were in fact developed the way I described. This is literally false. They were not developed in a vacuum like you describe, but as one of a great many competing products, all of which were older. You claim they should have been folded in with other, older projects, but they weren't and because they weren't, they improved beyond those other projects, and are still here, having grown beyond the projects you claim they should have been absorbed by. My argument was less than 50 words, if you can't parse it, I can't help you. This is also nearly a week old, has completely lost my interest, and likely the interest of everyone else on this site. Why are you still replying?

by dimino 10y ago

peterwwillis 10y ago

I used MPlayer and VLC as an example of good development. You then say that if they had been developed the way I describe, they would not exist. But they were in fact developed the way I described. And they are not imaginary. And there is no free software monopoly on video players (not coincidentally because free software was designed to kill monopolies in the first place). If you can somehow re-state this incredibly convoluted argument maybe we can re-address it, but i'm pretty sure you only reinforced my point.

dimino 10y ago
> You then say that if they had been developed the way I describe, they would not exist. But they were in fact developed the way I described. This is literally false. They were not developed in a vacuum like you describe, but as one of a great many competing products, all of which were older. You claim they should have been folded in with other, older projects, but they weren't and because they weren't, they improved beyond those other projects, and are still here, having grown beyond the projects you claim they should have been absorbed by. My argument was less than 50 words, if you can't parse it, I can't help you. This is also nearly a week old, has completely lost my interest, and likely the interest of everyone else on this site. Why are you still replying?