On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: > > That's fine, I even understand and relate to that. However, as a user, I > utterly don't care about it, as a I user I want to use the best tool > available today, let it be free or not, open source or not. If you are > making it harder for me because of your _idealism_, well... please don't. >
Hi, Coming back from the side that tries to help users get what they can from FFmpeg, it's funny how I've already seen cases where people try to build feature XYZ in a new version of FFmpeg just to find themselves in a position where it is not possible because the back-bone of what they're trying to do is basing on a proprietary library, which is - in this specific case - not available for the architecture which the user wanted to utilize. It can be really hard to explain to a user that no, he cannot have this feature. That there is no technical reason why it wouldn't be possible, but just the fact that it is dependent on a vendor. The end result being "Well, go ask $VENDOR if they are nice enough to give you an $ARCH SDK". And it might not always be the architecture, it could be parameters or capabilities or anything in between that the user might want from this new feature, which is not available from the closed source SDK. So while users might not care on some level, they often end up caring why we have something as a feature if they cannot utilize it or utilize it in the way that they wish to. Best regards, Jan _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
