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
> 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).No. Whilst it originally shared one developer, the current version does NOT share any developers with icecast 1.x. Since nobody seems even slightly interested in continuing development of 1.x (bitching about it is not the same...), it's not going to change. If _you_ want to pick up maintaining it - or if you want to go to the effort of finding maintainers for it, feel free. I'm certainly not going to - I don't have any interest (and never have had) in icecast 1.x. Stop bitching, and do something, or shut up. Mike --- >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: > > > 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 > > Because nobody seems to care. Besides, anyone can start his or her own > project, based on Icecast1. If you're unhappy, do something > constructive. Being rude those who brought Icecast to you in the first > place won't get you anywhere. >I don't think I'm being very rude. I think others are being unnecesarily rude to those still using icecast1 and who would like a little info on things like directory server status. I think people do care about icecast1. People do care about icecast.org. Branching off from the main project is always an option, yes, but why have to revert to it if other alternatives are available? At the least, I'll be willing to write a news update for icecast.org if someone wants to tell me how to get it up there. Not having followed the icecast2 development, I can't really talk about what stage it's in, but if some developers want to clue me in, I can write a blurb about that too. -- 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/20021230/d46efe99/part.pgp
Behold, Michael Smith <msmith@xiph.org> hath decreed:> > > 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). > > No. Whilst it originally shared one developer, the current version does NOT > share any developers with icecast 1.x. Since nobody seems even slightly > interested in continuing development of 1.x (bitching about it is not the > same...), it's not going to change. > > If _you_ want to pick up maintaining it - or if you want to go to the effort > of finding maintainers for it, feel free. I'm certainly not going to - I > don't have any interest (and never have had) in icecast 1.x. > > Stop bitching, and do something, or shut up.Give me access to icecast.org and I will. Otherwise, are you asking me (or others) to go ahead and hijack the project, or to take all of the code and call it something else? Aside from a few minor problems (an occassional crash in ices and icecast not cleaning up properly during shutdown from an suid'd run), I don't really have many problems with icecast1. The directory servers don't appear to be working very well, but it's not a problem with the client, apparently. I'll be happy to update the web page, however, and I'll even include icecast2 status if some developers want to give me a high-level progress report. If no one is willing to offer me or anyone else this access, then replies like yours are just trolls. -- 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/20021230/6e19546e/part.pgp
Aaron Gaudio wrote:> > 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'sBecause nobody seems to care. Besides, anyone can start his or her own project, based on Icecast1. If you're unhappy, do something constructive. Being rude those who brought Icecast to you in the first place won't get you anywhere. <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.