Its unfortunate that more corporations don’t contribute to the same open source that they make use of for profit. (I know some do however).
Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
11–20 of 99 posts
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#12It seems really strange that a library that wraps FFMpeg is being discontinued due to patent concerns with the underlying codecs, but those codecs are only implemented in FFMpeg itself, which continues along without issues.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are writing the article for a specific audience: ffmpegkit users. All tech articles assume some prior technical knowledge.
And yet it was posted here and many people who know nothing of the project will read it. Writing a sentence saying what the thing is takes a few words.
And clicking on a link to GitHub takes no time at all. Is there anything wrong with that approach? Furthermore, I feel that you shouldn't blame the author for omissions if their post is shared outside of the intended audience.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet it was posted here and many people who know nothing of the project will read it. Writing a sentence saying what the thing is takes a few words.
And clicking on a link to GitHub takes no time at all. Is there anything wrong with that approach? Furthermore, I feel that you shouldn't blame the author for omissions if their post is shared outside of the intended audience.
We could make every reader do the extra work, or the author could write a few words once.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#15[flagged]
Alternately, if you're reading an article about something and realize it assumes familiarity that you don't have, stop reading it or follow your curiosity.
The person who wrote the article did so for the audience of people that follow them, who would already be familiar with FFmpegkit: there would be no point to describing it because the name would be de facto known. Because the web is open, they don't have control over whose eyes stumble upon it and didn't submit it here. But the link got modest traction here nonetheless because enough people are already familiar or at least curious. It's a very organic process and neither the writer, the submitter, nor yourself are under any particular obligations.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are writing the article for a specific audience: ffmpegkit users. All tech articles assume some prior technical knowledge.
And yet it was posted here and many people who know nothing of the project will read it. Writing a sentence saying what the thing is takes a few words.
I see that more of a downside of HN's policy of essentially demanding that articles are posted without any context or explanation.
It's not the job of the author to provide context for an audience they didn't even write for - but it would be HN's job to provide context for its own audience.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet it was posted here and many people who know nothing of the project will read it. Writing a sentence saying what the thing is takes a few words.
And clicking on a link to GitHub takes no time at all. Is there anything wrong with that approach? Furthermore, I feel that you shouldn't blame the author for omissions if their post is shared outside of the intended audience.
I suspect there was a human who posted a link to the OP's post here on HN. It is -that- human who was being asked to provide context since they should have know that by posting a link to HN, they are posting a link to a community that may be different from the OP's original audience.
i.e.- this was not a rerquest or taner saner to provide context, but a request for @ericdiao to provide context.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#18Having dealt with MPEG-LA before, it makes me so wildly angry that a company composed of nothing but lawyers can suck money out of any product that wants to use a widely supported, arguably critical video codec.
The process for reporting to them for sales is also horrible. Uploading excel spreadsheets to an ASP.NET backend that's barely holding together. It's minimal effort from them to leverage all possible legal action over you. Horrible.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
And clicking on a link to GitHub takes no time at all. Is there anything wrong with that approach? Furthermore, I feel that you shouldn't blame the author for omissions if their post is shared outside of the intended audience.
I suspect there was a human who posted a link to the OP's post here on HN. It is -that- human who was being asked to provide context since they should have know that by posting a link to HN, they are posting a link to a community that may be different from the OP's original audience. i.e.- this was not a rerquest or taner saner to provide context, but a request for @ericdiao to provide context.
Except HN explicitly discourages this: You can intentionally submit either a text post or a link, but not both. For links, you could theoretically edit the title, but there too, the guidelines state that you should just use the original title from the article if possible.
Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
And clicking on a link to GitHub takes no time at all. Is there anything wrong with that approach? Furthermore, I feel that you shouldn't blame the author for omissions if their post is shared outside of the intended audience.
We could make every reader do the extra work, or the author could write a few words once.
It seems you are suggesting they would do it every time they post though