Behold, Adon Irani <adon@YorkU.CA> hath decreed:> > the icecast2 developers be guilt-tripped into repeating icecast's > performance ? > _ is it not enough that OGG can have a streaming server that supports it ?Perhaps, if that is the only requirement to have a fully-functional streamer. Unfortunately, I believe this is not sufficient for the user base. So, if the developers are interested in providing something that other people want to use, then it is not enough.> can't that feature base be developed and stabalized prior to prettyin' up > the package w/ features from the original icecast ?Yes, it certainly can. But don't call the feature base released. Call it a work in progress (an alpha, in other words).> > another question -- who do you think develops these things ?? go read > "Cathedral and the Bazaar" somewhere on the web or in a bo0kstore near you > . . don't expect everything , and you won't have to deal w/ sh*t/rushed > c0de . allow a project to develop into its own niche , and i do believe > strongly that OGG/vorbis does indeed merit the attention .The argument is not that icecast2 needs everything right now. It is only that until icecast2 has all the features meant for release, it should not be considered released. In that case, it is still under development, and the previously released version (icecast1 so far) is the current stable version. Those who are willing to give up the features not yet implemented in icecast2 in order to stream vorbis, can use the devel version. Those who don't need to stream vorbis can continue using the stable version. There is not a good rationality for considering icecast1 replaced and obsolete if icecast2 is still lacking in features and/or not tested enough.> > , and if you need MP3 _ weLL , be creative . use icecast2 AND icecast on > another port (i think this is possible ) . OR , offer OGG live-streams , > and OGG / mp3 (batch converted from .OGG ) for the on-demand programming .But if icecast1 is "obsolete" then why advocate using it at all?> . > > and pLease , PLEASE __ open your mind to a world that is bigger than > proprietary technologies , and neEdy/ outmoded user bases . .Ah, herein lies the problem. If the icecast maintainers believe the mp3 community to be "neEdy/ outmoded user bases", then they are not interested in the user base, only themselves. Fair enough, then put up a disclaimer and stop responding to users. Call it a research project. Let someone else handle maintaining and distributing a package that people actually want to use. -- prothonotar at tarnation.dyndns.org "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, /Momento Mori/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: part Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 593 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/attachments/20021228/64d1ad50/part.pgp
Aaron Gaudio wrote:> Ah, herein lies the problem. If the icecast maintainers believe the > mp3 community to be "neEdy/ outmoded user bases", then they are not > interested in the user base, only themselves. Fair enough, then putWell, I think saying that Xiph.org doesn't care about its users at all is too harsh. On the other hand, there's some truth in this, and I highly appreciate it. If you want to stick to MP3, Icecast1 is for you - nobody forces you to use it (or not), and you're also free to use something else. Xiph.org, i.e. Jack Moffitt, made it for themselves a few years ago and people found it useful. Now they're working on something better. Why complain? If they'd care about every single user wish, they'd get nothing done. If other users tell you that you suck because you use Icecast1, ignore them. We're talking technology, not religion. If getting free support for Icecast1 is harder than getting help with Icecast2, it's because more people on this list are interested in Icecast2. I heard Xiph.org will gladly refund what you paid for Icecast1 support if you're not satisfied. It's not Xiph.org's job to advocate their stuff either. If you like something they made, tell others about it. If you don't, tell others, too (if you care) ... just stick to facts in any case. <p>Moritz --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'icecast-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed:> Aaron Gaudio wrote: > > the current stable version. Those who are willing to give up the > > features not yet implemented in icecast2 in order to stream vorbis, can > > use the devel version. Those who don't need to stream vorbis can > > continue using the stable version. There is not a good rationality for > > Icecast2 is a rewrite and no new version of Icecast1.It's icecast. It's part of xiph. It's the same project. Presumably it's the same developers. I don't care about the similarity of the code bases. One is released, the other one is not (alpha versions are not releases).> Icecast1 > developement is no more. Icecast 1.3.12 also exists only because of a > serious security issue - without that, this version wouldn't exist.Maybe that's the case. If so, it's a sad state of affairs. If there just aren't volunteers to work on maintaining icecast1 (bugfixes, etc.) then why don't we get a call for help asking for developers who are willing to maintain it-- instead of silence and disdain? If it's simply a lack of volunteers, that's understandable, but then why the apathy toward all things icecast1, since presumably that's still what the majority of icecast users are using. Or are you just saying "fuck the users; if you can't code for us we don't need you; go read the Cathedral and the Bazaar and shut up"? If that's the case, then someone ought to go put that on the webpage and stop beating around the bush. Let the user base know where they stand, and see how many new volunteers you get for the project. -- prothonotar at tarnation.dyndns.org "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, /Momento Mori/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: part Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 593 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/attachments/20021228/ef7716d6/part.pgp
Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed:> > Well, I think saying that Xiph.org doesn't care about its users at all > is too harsh. On the other hand, there's some truth in this, and I > highly appreciate it. If you want to stick to MP3, Icecast1 is for you - > nobody forces you to use it (or not), and you're also free to use > something else. Xiph.org, i.e. Jack Moffitt, made it for themselves a > few years ago and people found it useful. Now they're working on > something better. Why complain? If they'd care about every single user > wish, they'd get nothing done.My complaint is not what Jack Moffitt or anyone else chooses to spend their free time working on. My complaint is the complete lack of any kind of notice about icecast2, in light of the continuing (albeit out of date) existence of information on icecast1, including how to download it and install it, from icecast.org. That, coupled with an obvious disdain for icecast1 on this mailing list (which is, after all, the user support mailing list). The only reply that seems to be meeted out is "go get icecast2". Oh yeah? Well icecast2 does not seem to be ready to replace icecast1. So if it is not replacing icecast1, then why so much disdain for icecast1 users on this list?> > If other users tell you that you suck because you use Icecast1, ignore > them. We're talking technology, not religion. If getting free support > for Icecast1 is harder than getting help with Icecast2, it's because > more people on this list are interested in Icecast2. I heard Xiph.org > will gladly refund what you paid for Icecast1 support if you're not > satisfied. It's not Xiph.org's job to advocate their stuff either. If > you like something they made, tell others about it. If you don't, tell > others, too (if you care) ... just stick to facts in any case.So xiph.org is not in any way interested in developing projects that are useful to people? So can I take that to imply that the Ogg projects, the Paranoia projects, etc. are simply academic exercises, and the developers on them aren't interested in knowing whether or not they work for anyone else, or what anyone else might be interested in getting to work? That's good to know. Not the best way to convince me and others to put time and effort into any of those projects, so thanks, you may have saved me some time and effort. -- prothonotar at tarnation.dyndns.org "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, /Momento Mori/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: part Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 593 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast/attachments/20021228/8909f3c3/part.pgp
Aaron Gaudio wrote:> the current stable version. Those who are willing to give up the > features not yet implemented in icecast2 in order to stream vorbis, can > use the devel version. Those who don't need to stream vorbis can > continue using the stable version. There is not a good rationality forIcecast2 is a rewrite and no new version of Icecast1. Icecast1 developement is no more. Icecast 1.3.12 also exists only because of a serious security issue - without that, this version wouldn't exist. <p>Moritz --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'icecast-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.