On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:13:40 +0200 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Le decadi 20 germinal, an CCXXIII, wm4 a écrit : > > Maintaining a > > wrapper for a dead library when there's something better > > Please stop spreading your own arbitrary value judgments everywhere as if > they were universal. > > Unlike what you claim, youtube-dl is not BETTER than quvi. Sure, it supports > more formats, sure it is maintained, and that is good, better than quvi. But > on the other hand, youtube-dl is just a script for DOWNLOADING, while quvi > was a library that allowed to access the content directly. That means > playing on the fly, possibly seeking, etc. > > When A and B have both advantages and drawbacks with regard to each other, > you can not say that one is better than the other. > > The best you could do, if you were interested in usefully contributing, > would be to help implementing the advantages of A inside B, or the other way > around, so that one projects becomes better. Not better than the other, > better than itself. That is, in the end, the only thing that matters. > > Regards, > Huh? I don't think you quite know what youtube-dl can do. For your information, it does everything quvi could do, and more. It's also much better at it and faster too. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
