Free and Open Source Software

20671 readers

1 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

203

FFmpeg to Google: Fund Us or Stop Sending Bugs (thenewstack.io)

submitted 1 week ago by als@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/foss@beehaw.org

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

... Why?

Chances are good that you are using ffmpeg in one form or another. It is used in tons of software and services like your browser or Twitch and YouTube.

It's pretty close to xkcd/2347 status.

[+] stinky@redlemmy.com -11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a matter of bad journalism, not my personal taste. Ciao

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bad journalism has nothing to do with this. Literal first paragraph of the article:

You may never have heard of FFmpeg, but you’ve used it. This open source program’s robust multimedia framework is used to process video and audio media files and streams across numerous platforms and devices. It provides tools and libraries for format conversion, aka transcoding, playback, editing, streaming, and post-production effects for both audio and video media.

If you weren't paying attention until someone pointed out your error, just say that. We won't crucify you.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm attacking the author's bad journalism. You are defending the validity of the format. You are wrong not because the format is valid but because you are defending a point I am not attacking.

I'm sorry. It's an egregious and embarrassing error and whoever educated you in rhetoric should refund your money, assuming you paid for it. ciao

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 5 points 1 week ago

Alright, lemme try to explain this:

You stated you don't care about FFmpeg.
Someone asked why and stated it was useful.
You brought up "bad journalism" in response, implying your lack of care for FFmpeg was due to the article not describing why it was useful.
To refute your accusation of bad journalism, I pointed out the first paragraph of the article, which directly makes a case for FFmpeg and which you seemed to have missed.
You somehow seem to think I'm defending FFmpeg in some fashion, thus missing my point. (Also, you seem to be calling FFmpeg a "format," presumably because it has "mpeg" in the name? FFmpeg handles a litany of formats.)

The author has not done bad journalism. You just missed stuff while reading. That's fine so long as you address it. I would ask you not insult me for pointing this out, though.