Full Version: ogg vorbis progress
Why has ogg-vorbis progress been so slow? Right now it's roughly on par with lame, which is commendable, but I had been expecting it to be more like linux in development.
QUOTE(adlai @ Dec 19 2003, 07:47 PM)
Why has ogg-vorbis progress been so slow?
Short Answer: Because you aren't contributing patches.
Long Answer: Read this thread. It's quite the thread. I'd rather not re-live it. Please don't continue it. Thanks.
QUOTE(Peter Harris @ Dec 19 2003, 11:12 PM)
Short Answer: Because you aren't contributing patches.
Can't be the reason. Garf contributed very useful patches (GT3), that were tested a lot here (so lack of proper testing isn't an excuse), and still they didn't find their way to the CVS.
Point is (as has been pointed out in that thread) that Monty is a too busy guy and a too narrow bottleneck.
lol, I would contribute if I had the ability and the know-how. As it is, I can barely code C++ 
I used to write machine code on the Commodore 64. Doubt I would be much help with this.
QUOTE
Point is (as has been pointed out in that thread) that Monty is a too busy guy and a too narrow bottleneck.
In my opinion the biggest problem is that related project are STILL not involved by Xiph !
(even if their pages claim "building a new era of Open multimedia")
Some examples ?
OGM tools
P2P-Radio
My 2 cent.
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Dec 19 2003, 08:27 PM)
QUOTE(Peter Harris @ Dec 19 2003, 11:12 PM)
Short Answer: Because you aren't contributing patches.
Can't be the reason. Garf contributed very useful patches (GT3), that were tested a lot here (so lack of proper testing isn't an excuse), and still they didn't find their way to the CVS.
And yet, people are using the Garf Tuned libraries. Xiph doesn't need to accept patches for people to use them. That's the beauty of open source. (See also: OggDropXPd, OggDS [until recently, not that Xiph has done anything with that yet], 'oggenc 2.3', vorbisgain, egcs, xemacs, μcLinux, OpenBSD, Mandrake, etc.)
QUOTE(Peter Harris @ Dec 20 2003, 03:15 PM)
And yet, people are using the Garf Tuned libraries. Xiph doesn't need to accept patches for people to use them. That's the beauty of open source.
Erm... the original poster asked about speed of Vorbis development. Not yet more open source zealotry.
Ah, lovely isn't? Don't worry tho, if enough people organize together, they can...
(drumroll)
...Fork!
Bwahahaha, thats also a beauty in open source, power for the people! yay!
May the source be with you
Open source projects development speed can vary due to many factors, one of them could be when its a one man's project. Sometimes you can create incentives, hire the author, or hire people to contribute patches or do it yourself, Should for some reason they don't get accepted, you could maintain special patches or do a complete fork altogether, in other words, bypass "the one true source".
Some people fear this "fork" word, think of redundancy, duplicating efforts, etc. but i see it as yet another way to stimulate progress, and its what happens when people can't get themselves well together. There is no need to push Monty or any other person working in any open source project, since you have the source, you can contribute to the project, or start your own, either from the already done work (fork) or from scratch.
As they say, its released when its ready...
On the other hand, the vorbis format is complete and there is nothing stopping others from creating their own encoders to make vorbis compliant streams. Of course they could also create their own formats as well...
From Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service / Notices:
Have a nice day
(drumroll)
...Fork!
Bwahahaha, thats also a beauty in open source, power for the people! yay!
May the source be with you
Open source projects development speed can vary due to many factors, one of them could be when its a one man's project. Sometimes you can create incentives, hire the author, or hire people to contribute patches or do it yourself, Should for some reason they don't get accepted, you could maintain special patches or do a complete fork altogether, in other words, bypass "the one true source".
Some people fear this "fork" word, think of redundancy, duplicating efforts, etc. but i see it as yet another way to stimulate progress, and its what happens when people can't get themselves well together. There is no need to push Monty or any other person working in any open source project, since you have the source, you can contribute to the project, or start your own, either from the already done work (fork) or from scratch.
As they say, its released when its ready...
On the other hand, the vorbis format is complete and there is nothing stopping others from creating their own encoders to make vorbis compliant streams. Of course they could also create their own formats as well...
From Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service / Notices:
QUOTE
1. All messages express the views of the author, not the forum and it's administration
Have a nice day
Hmm, well,
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/show...opic/16670/st/0
it now appears that Monty is mulling over creating a "vorbis 2" which would break compatability. Now from what I've read, a vorbis 2 makes sense since vorbis 1 is unwieldy and unsuited for portable use. probably a good analogy would be x86 which is pretty inefficient but is widely used.. might as well kill the imperfections now eh?
So, how long before we see any significant improvements from ogg?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/show...opic/16670/st/0
it now appears that Monty is mulling over creating a "vorbis 2" which would break compatability. Now from what I've read, a vorbis 2 makes sense since vorbis 1 is unwieldy and unsuited for portable use. probably a good analogy would be x86 which is pretty inefficient but is widely used.. might as well kill the imperfections now eh?
So, how long before we see any significant improvements from ogg?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.