Hydrogenaudio Forums

Lossless Audio Compression => Lossless / Other Codecs => Topic started by: atherean on 2002-03-16 10:25:16

Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: atherean on 2002-03-16 10:25:16
Monkey's Audio lossless audio compressor source code is now available!

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/Y...&num=1016262232 (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1016262232)

"Here's a pre-release of the upcoming 3.96b1 SDK which includes the source code to Monkey's Audio. (just the compression guts for now, but more will follow)"
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2002-03-16 13:39:28
[span style='font-size:24']That is brilliant![/span]

1. Does that mean "you" (i.e. all the people who kept telling us to use inferior software because it was open source) will be happy for everyone to use Monkey's Audio now?

2. Who is going to be the first to get the lossy mode back in there? I'm serious. It was great. Be nice though - make it impossible for people to confuse the lossless and lossy modes.

Cheers,
David.
http://www.David.Robinson.org/ (http://www.David.Robinson.org/)

EDIT: P.S. Matt works for J River who do Media Jukebox, not Music Match who do MusicMatch Jukebox. That was (unintentionally) a very nasty thing to say! ;-)
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-03-16 14:28:12
Quote
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
1. Does that mean "you" (i.e. all the people who kept telling us to use inferior software because it was open source) will be happy for everyone to use Monkey's Audio now?


These same people will now start complaining it isn't GPL.

BTW: I started a news thread on the matter. It surely deserves...
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2002-03-16 15:05:40
Quote
1. Does that mean "you" (i.e. all the people who kept telling us to use inferior software because it was open source) will be happy for everyone to use Monkey's Audio now?

Unfair. Monkey's Audio is the best lossless compressor - it's not inferior. Until now, however, the file format was completely closed, and the program that understood the file format was only available for one OS.

Sadly, but understandably, the source code license is very restrictive - condition 2 in particular. Condition 3 stops it from being used in BSD licensed software.
Quote
1. This source code is completely free for personal or educational use.

2. The use of any of the Monkey's Audio source code or any component thereof from another program requires express written permission from the author of Monkey's Audio.

3. The use of Monkey's Audio or the Monkey's Audio source code for any commercial purposes including, but not limited to, implementation in shareware packages is strictly prohibited without first obtaining written permission from the author.

5. All code changes and improvements must be contributed back to the Monkey's Audio project free from restrictions or royalties for the sake of the common good.

6. Although the software has been tested thoroughly, the author is in no way responsible for damages due to bugs or misuse.

7. If you do not completely agree with all of the previous stipulations, you must cease using this source code and remove it from your storage device.

(yes, there's no condition 4 .
So yes, I'll continue using FLAC, but I'm much happier now for the future of Monkey's Audio. I'd be even happier if he used a more liberal license for the *decoding* portion of the source code.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: meff on 2002-03-16 15:18:01
i'm not going to complain its not GPL, i'm going to complain that with a license like that it might as well have stayed closed

I don't really care what license they use, as long as its 'open' .. this isn't

I may be stupid, but I know the difference between "open so everyone can use freely and possibly use for themselves" and "open so people improve a closed project for nothing in return"
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: darwyn on 2002-03-16 15:33:56
Oh I am SO sorry!

I thought this board was to support people not bash them.

Meff, I can disagree more with you. Its odd that you would tell me off for enjoying a lossless format that compressed 3% better and runs 30% faster.
Both are free and this is obvious intent for Matt, who has always come off as a good spirited person to me, to expand APE to everyone.
Can you tell me does FLAC support tagging? I have never bothered to use it since I read all over on websites and bulliten board how terrible it is.

The point of this thread is the APE is being tested for LINUX. Lets try to stay on this subject.

Darwyn
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2002-03-16 15:55:29
Jon,

I was saying that everything else is inferior compared to Monkey!


Meff,

Well, it depends how strict Matt is in imposing what he asks. Point (2) isn't even propper English. But it'll be interesting to see if he intends

a) to prevent any one from making any money out of monkey
b) to prevent any one from wrecking monkey, or
c) to prevent any one from even using monkey at all!

Normally, when people say "ask permission to use" it means they'll probably give permission. Otherwise, there's no point to saying "look, here's the source code - but HA - you can't use it!"

And to be fair, Monkey is already the best - better than all the open and closed alternatives - what improvements do you think he's looking for "for free"?

Still, we'll see what happens.


Cheers,
David.
http://www.David.Robinson.org/ (http://www.David.Robinson.org/)
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: JohnV on 2002-03-16 16:02:18
Eh, What happens now?
Will Flac suddenly become better?
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: meff on 2002-03-16 16:04:21
Quote
Originally posted by darwyn
Oh I am SO sorry!

I thought this board was to support people not bash them.

Meff, I can disagree more with you. Its odd that you would tell me off for enjoying a lossless format that compressed 3% better and runs 30% faster.
Both are free and this is obvious intent for Matt, who has always come off as a good spirited person to me, to expand APE to everyone.
Can you tell me does FLAC support tagging? I have never bothered to use it since I read all over on websites and bulliten board how terrible it is.

The point of this thread is the APE is being tested for LINUX. Lets try to stay on this subject.

Darwyn


i'm not bashing anyone, I am stating my opinion.

I never told you off.

As far as tagging, I don't see a reason if you use good descriptions on your directories and maybe even CD-TEXT (like a bunch of my buddies are using) files. But, hey, it could be added, quite easily even. I'm sure if theres enough 'want' then it will be.

What would be really interesting is to see APE contribute optimizations to FLAC, and to create a open merger, being these are the two best lossless codec's with open-style licenses.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2002-03-16 16:05:29
Quote
I was saying that everything else is inferior compared to Monkey!

Yes, of course you were. Must be too early in the morning for me... (is 3pm too early?  ).

And you're quite right about the license being unclear about what his intentions are. Reading the rest of the material, he seems to want people to write plugins for XMMS etc., which implies that he'd like to see the code widely used.

If he wants to keep tight control of the code, but allow it to be widely used, then he'd be best to create a 'libMonkey', with liberal linking conditions.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: meff on 2002-03-16 16:09:25
Quote
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
Jon,

I was saying that everything else is inferior compared to Monkey!


Meff,

Well, it depends how strict Matt is in imposing what he asks. Point (2) isn't even propper English. But it'll be interesting to see if he intends

a) to prevent any one from making any money out of monkey
b) to prevent any one from wrecking monkey, or
c) to prevent any one from even using monkey at all!

Normally, when people say "ask permission to use" it means they'll probably give permission. Otherwise, there's no point to saying "look, here's the source code - but HA - you can't use it!"

And to be fair, Monkey is already the best - better than all the open and closed alternatives - what improvements do you think he's looking for "for free"?

Still, we'll see what happens.


Cheers,
David.
http://www.David.Robinson.org/ (http://www.David.Robinson.org/)


a) use the GPL or a variant.
b) trademark the name. let people branch it if they want to, maybe you'll learn something.

if its the best doesn't matter, a good example.. would you rather pay for Oracle which "is 'hack'proof" hehe, or a open SQL alternative? sure, MySQL doesn't have Larry's seal of approval, but it sure as hell does 'good enough', and its being improved all the time, with the sourcecode open.

anyways, I wasn't trying to come off as 'bashing' or flaming anyone, I am just throwing in some opinions into the mix, be constructive, and please don't turn this into a war and I won't

I am sure (though I've never used it) that MA *IS* a really good codec, but it'll get my full respect once a less restrictive license is placed on its codebase.

-r
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: mithrandir on 2002-03-16 16:22:51
Actually, FLAC looks rather unattractive now. MAC has an unbelievable speed/compression ratio and now that it is (partially) open source, the disadvantages of FLAC look to be too much...for the moment.

The nice thing about lossless is that if you pick the "wrong" format you can reconvert without losing the source.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: JohnV on 2002-03-16 16:23:46
Ok, I moved some open source discussion to this thread from the "Monkey's Audio goes Linux thread"
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: YouriP on 2002-03-16 16:53:41
Some people just want to complain, and they'll do so about anything. When it's GPL, they'll whine that it can't be used in LGPL programs, and vice versa. When it's PD, they'll bitch about it not having such a big userbase as FLAC already has (at least in the Open Source community). It's just stubbornness on their part. But with the source available, there is really no need to worry about other Open Source projects saying "Oh, I won't use this", because frankly, their support isn't needed since MAC is already superior to theirs.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: JohnV on 2002-03-16 17:09:29
Quote
Originally posted by mithrandir
Actually, FLAC looks rather unattractive now. MAC has an unbelievable speed/compression ratio and now that it is (partially) open source, the disadvantages of FLAC look to be too much...for the moment.
I wonder if FLAC can be tweaked using some of the ideas from MAC. I mean you can protect source with licences, but you can't protect ideas.
And FLAC is streamable, at least MAC 3.80 is not (I'm not sure about latest MAC bitstream). Not sure what other advantages there are in FLAC bitstream compared to MAC bitstream.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: SNYder on 2002-03-16 19:48:06
oh yeah baby!  open source wooo!

looks like my post in the "monkey's audio goes linux" thread has no relavence anymore, now that flac's biggest leg up on monkey's audio has just been eliminated.  wooooo!

hope people start porting monkey's audio to even more OS's soon.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-03-16 20:13:36
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
hope people start porting monkey's audio to even more OS's soon.


That would really be great.

And I hope it helps to consolidate MA as lossless compression scheme of choice. That would be even better!
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: xmixahlx on 2002-03-16 20:29:08
so much bashing...so much...

when monkey's is able to:
1. compress/decompress
2. playback through plugins
3. be available to the public
4. become freely distributable [gpl, etc.] *well, this may be optional...
5. and still be superior to flac [compression ratio, speed performance, stability, etc.]

...for all operating systems who previously used flac, guess what?  they won't use flac anymore [probably].  until then, everyone will continue using flac...cause they can't use monkey's yet.  why is this such a complex rationale for some of you.  it isn't even close to being complicated.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Somebody on 2002-03-16 21:17:06
I am glad Matt is going the way everyone wanted him to go.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: JohnV on 2002-03-16 21:31:25
Yeah, even though Monkey's Audio [strike]is now open source[/strike] source code is available, there's not much support for it at all outside Win32, nobody knows what it's going to be.
Also, have to say that at the moment I believe much more to the FLAC-project as a whole.
It really is a long way for MA and Matt or someone else to start whole new project in order to Monkey's Audio to be similar to FLAC (development, goals, support, etc.)

Knowing that FLAC is a nice open source project going on already and it even has hardware support, I'd more willingly like to see FLAC adapt some of the ideas of Monkey's Audio to increase compression. Of course it would be nice if this was done in co-operation with Matt, and proper credit to Matt could be given.

I guess what I want to say is, that FLAC is better and more clear project with specific goals and wider support.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Trelane on 2002-03-17 02:16:24
First off: kudos to Matt.

Second: If I were Matt and you starting complaining after I just threw you a bone, I'd seriously consider taking the bone back. Matt will not do this because he's such a cool guy.

What I gather from his license is that he wants to know what you're doing and he doesn't want you to go make a profit on something that's 95% his code. I suspect he also doesn't want the great Monkey's Audio name being tainted... I can just picture all the clones now: .COW, .MOO, .BEAR, .GOAT (ack!)... hahaha
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Delirium on 2002-03-17 04:55:08
I tend to not like describing things like this as "open source," because it confuses the issue.  When I (and many other people) use the term "open source" we mean that the source is available under a license that meets the requirements of the Open Source Definition as stated by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/) (these are essentially identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines).  To most people when you say "this is an open source project," it means that the source is available and you can modify it and distribute modified copies.  I.e. it's a community project, anybody can get the code, improve it, and distribute their improved versions.

This I'd called "source available."  Certainly that's a good thing, and better than closed-source, but it's not the same as "open source."  For example there are versions of Solaris for which the source code is available, but it's certainly not an open source project.

Note: this isn't meant to be an attack on the license; it's his code, he can license it however he wants, and I'm certainly glad that he's chosen to release the code for others to view.  But I'd like to avoid using confusing terminology, since to most people involved in the open source community the term "open source software" has a very specific meaning, and Monkey's Audio as currently licensed is not open source software.

Note2: This isn't directed in any sense at the Monkey's Audio author, since from what I can see he himself describes it as "the source code is available," and doesn't call it "open source"; but some other people are doing so, which is what I'm correcting.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: jcoalson on 2002-03-17 07:29:37
Quote
Originally posted by JohnV
I wonder if FLAC can be tweaked using some of the ideas from MAC. I mean you can protect source with licences, but you can't protect ideas.
And FLAC is streamable, at least MAC 3.80 is not (I'm not sure about latest MAC bitstream). Not sure what other advantages there are in FLAC bitstream compared to MAC bitstream.


Well, now that I've looked through the code, let me post what I've found.

First, the license does not preclude a reimplementation.  In the US, probably no license could (yet).  From the FLAC point of view, for this option to make sense, all of these have to be true:

1. The algorithm should not be covered by any patents.

2. The algorithm should be faster in a cross-platform way, i.e. it should not be faster than the basic FLAC algo on one machine because of assembly, and slower on another when both are in C.

3. The resulting complexity should be worth the improvement for all situations the format is designed for.

First, take #1.  If a format had a patent on it and not backed by a huge conglomerate, it is dead.  From the companies I've talked to, even if your method looks complicated enough that it seems there's a chance of part already being patented, that's enough to make people nervous.  So either someone else has a patent (possible, see #3), Matt has/will have a patent (less likely), or it's scary (see #3) or it's free and clear.

2. Don't know too much about this one yet since I haven't tried to compile it yet (the binary he distributed wouldn't link at runtime for me).  The only thing we know is that without the inline assembly the higher modes are 2-3x slower (from his docs).

3. Let's compare FLAC vs. MAC this way:

FLAC:

- break audio into blocks
- simple interchannel decorrelation for stereo
- construct FIR filter via LPC analysis
- code the residual with static Rice coding

MAC:

- break audio into blocks
- simple interchannel decorrelation for stereo
- fixed first order linear filter
- low order adaptive linear filter
- 0-2 levels of small neural nets
- code the residual with a range coder

Now if you know about this stuff MAC is way more complex.  I'm actually pretty impressed.  But it tells us a few things.  One is, to get the high compression and good speed you have to code the neural net stuff in assembly.  Next, you'll have a hard time convincing someone there isn't a patent on anything in that already.  Last, with all that in mind, it is pretty hard to pop that sucker into an embedded device, which FLAC is intended to do.

So, there is a lot for study there.  I may be able to build off what he's done in a way that is consistent with FLAC goals.  It will be interesting to study his adaptive filter and neural net more.

Josh
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: layer3maniac on 2002-03-17 17:35:37
Quote
to get the high compression and good speed you have to code the neural net stuff in assembly. 
:eek:  didn't see that coming...
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: monkey on 2002-03-18 00:04:55
Honestly, it's a little depressing to be taking damage for giving MAC away.  I've put a lot of work into it and turned down a lot of money to keep it free for everyone.  The license is there to protect me and the Monkey's Audio project -- not because I'm an ass.

Anybody who has ever wished to use MAC in their own product that has been considerate enough to contact me first has been given free reign to do anything they want with it.

Thanks to everyone who has been supportive...

-Matt
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-03-18 00:46:15
I agree completely with Matt.

As I posted some time ago, "These same people will now start complaining it isn't GPL. " Sure enough, these @$$holes (like meff - yes, I'm being personal and ballistic - I AM ballistic) saying it should stay closed. Weren't these same people whining it had no specs and no way to use it in other OSes? Well, now you've got all you wanted and keep whining like losers.

IMO, it's the kind of people that is completely obsessed and biased towards Open Source software. Now there is a program that is better than it's Open Source counterpart IN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT, but they don't want to admit that Open Source soft may sometimes be worse. Why don't you guys send a love letter to Stallman? It's the next logical step.

Farewell (And I hope noone edits this message)

Roberto.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: VeryBlur on 2002-03-18 01:36:41
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim
Why don't you guys send a love letter to Stallman? It's the next logical step.
Roberto.


Hey Stallman is a nice guy! I went for his talk in my campus and he is such a nice guy.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-03-18 01:43:13
Quote
Originally posted by VeryBlur

Hey Stallman is a nice guy! I went for his talk in my campus and he is such a nice guy.


heh. Nothing against Stallman. Just against those people that are obsessed with Open Source. (well, Stallman IS[/b] obsessed with Open Source  ) :confused:

R.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: JohnV on 2002-03-18 10:14:08
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim
As I posted some time ago, "These same people will now start complaining it isn't GPL. " Sure enough, these @$$holes (like meff - yes, I'm being personal and ballistic - I AM ballistic) saying it should stay closed. Weren't these same people whining it had no specs and no way to use it in other OSes? Well, now you've got all you wanted and keep whining like losers.
Please, lets try again keep things calm and not go to personal level, ok?
Quote
IMO, it's the kind of people that is completely obsessed and biased towards Open Source software. Now there is a program that is better than it's Open Source counterpart IN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT, but they don't want to admit that Open Source soft may sometimes be worse.
Well, in my opinion the only aspect Monkey's Audio is better is the technical (compression) aspect, in that it's no doubt clearly the best. However, imo the monkey's audio project seems not so well coordinated at the moment (I may be wrong).
A bit sad to say this, but when reading the monkeysaudio forum, you can certainly notice the large amount of people having problems ranging from small problems to MA just not being reliable in producing lossless results (crc problems etc.). Things won't become any easier now, that there can be many compiles for many different platforms..

In my opinion MA is not better in almost every aspect than FLAC for example.. although it does have the best compression ratio. For win32 there's of course the nice frontend. But still, I would like to know what are Matt's goals.. will he host and support compiles for different systems, what are the plans for the future, etc.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Jon Ingram on 2002-03-18 13:28:54
Quote
As I posted some time ago, "These same people will now start complaining it isn't GPL. " Sure enough, these @$$holes (like meff - yes, I'm being personal and ballistic - I AM ballistic) saying it should stay closed. Weren't these same people whining it had no specs and no way to use it in other OSes? Well, now you've got all you wanted and keep whining like losers.

The anticipation of responses like yours is why I haven't written more in this thread -- it's very hard to have a rational discussion when people will blatantly disregard the points one makes.

The Monkey's Audio author has done a great thing by opening his source code. As it stands, he's using his own license, which makes unclear his intentions as to how he would like the source code to be treated by other projects. These issues will be cleared up through discourse, not through telling people to 'write a love letter to Richard Stallman'. You might not care about licences (indeed, you've expressly stated in the past your contempt for them), but many people do, particularly as regards to availability and use of source code.

If you haven't got anything positive to add to the discussion, please keep quiet.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: meff on 2002-03-18 16:26:03
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim
I agree completely with Matt.

As I posted some time ago, "These same people will now start complaining it isn't GPL. " Sure enough, these @$$holes (like meff - yes, I'm being personal and ballistic - I AM ballistic) saying it should stay closed. Weren't these same people whining it had no specs and no way to use it in other OSes? Well, now you've got all you wanted and keep whining like losers.

IMO, it's the kind of people that is completely obsessed and biased towards Open Source software. Now there is a program that is better than it's Open Source counterpart IN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT, but they don't want to admit that Open Source soft may sometimes be worse. Why don't you guys send a love letter to Stallman? It's the next logical step.

Farewell (And I hope noone edits this message)

Roberto.


Never said one was better or worse, just stating differences.
I may be an asshole, but not an egotistical groupie that calls everyone a stereotype.

No, I am not a GNU freak. No, I don't hump the GPL, I use soo many different types of programs and licenses, and I code many languages and use many operating systems, I know the hoops. You may think that every person using linux is a idiotic script kiddie, well, news for you. YOU are the one thats the idiotic.

I never started bashing nor a flamewar, but you just had to start calling names?
Very mature.

Both are good, use what you want. But don't come whining to me when your strapped by the limitations of non-open software, whilst I am using something MAYBE a *little* less effective, but it's licensing makes up for that. I never said FLAC was better, I said the trade-off is small.

As far as I am concerned with the project, I could care less if it stayed closed. I just know, that even if FLAC ever gets reverted to a closed license, we can branch the last open one -- by Matt's license he can reclaim it anytime he wants, and in fact control people using it to an extent.

Roberto, there are advantages and disadvantages. A closed-type license may suit your needs, but for me, an open-source developer contributing to the ever-growing HUGE pool of totally free and open software, open licenses benefit my efforts further and help me make my projects better for everyone else.

YMMV

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me anymore names
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: krsna77 on 2002-03-18 16:47:42
Matt should be lauded for being generous w/ his code. It's the fruit of his labour, and he is free to do with it as he pleases.

Not to mention, of course, that Monkey's Audio is an awesome piece of software, and that I am glad to finally have it available for other platforms! Thank you Matt!

That all having been said, those who would offer constructive criticism concerning MA licensing issues are indeed CORRECT in doing so, if indeed they care at all about the future of MA.

It it easy enough to leave everyone with a liberal, yet vague license in hand, but in the end, that will surely cause more HARM than good!

Anyone who's payed attention to the whole OpenBSD vs. IPF (http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=ipfilter) debacle can surely attest to that. After much arguing and mailing list flamefests, and many very, very bruised egos, the OpenBSD team ended up completely removing IPF (as well as qmail and djbdns), and writing their own solution, simply because the author of IPF did not clearly state his intentions in the first place. It's a shame, because IPF was a well-designed, mature firewalling solution.

For those who do not pay attention to such things, in short, when an author does not CLEARLY, EXPLICITLY, and CONSISELY state his intentions concerning his software, trouble will sure arise in the future, when a user does something the developer doesn't like, or vice versa.

I like MA, a lot, and I don't want to see users and developers of this software to be faced with the same ugly issues. It would behoove Matt, therefore, to review his license, decide EXACTLY what his intentions are, and go with a long, consise license NOW, before such questions arise, and ppl get upset over something stupid (use of code in other projects, &c.), that could have been avoided with a little planning.

Writing out a license isn't exactly fun. That's why many well-planned, well-thought, lawyer-reviewed licenses abound (GPL, LGPL, BSD, Artistic, MPL, NPL, SCSL, APSL, &c. &c.).

People like Stallman do what they do, not to be harbingers of inconvenience or anal nitpicking, but to AVOID CONFLICT. In order to avoid conflict, the nits must be picked up front, BEFORE software that people can't use the way they want to (in conflict with developer wishes) is inundated EVERYWHERE, and difficult to replace.

The hydrogenaudio discussion boards should be free of any conflict other than friendly banter, wouldn't you agree? So let's clarify these things now before it turns into another insipid holy war. We should all be clear just where and how we CAN and CANNOT use Monkey's Audio.

Matt - vagueness will only bite you in the ass someday. Spend some time getting to know precise legalese licenses, and nip it in the bud now, so you can get back to what you're obviously very good at!

Just my $0.02
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: meff on 2002-03-18 16:54:56
Quote
Originally posted by krsna77

Anyone who's payed attention to the whole OpenBSD vs. IPF (http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=ipfilter) debacle can surely attest to that. After much arguing and mailing list flamefests, and many very, very bruised egos, the OpenBSD team ended up completely removing IPF (as well as qmail and djbdns), and writing their own solution, simply because the author of IPF did not clearly state his intentions in the first place. It's a shame, because IPF was a well-designed, mature firewalling solution.


lol, that's mainly because Theo de-Raadt is a huge asshole (95% of people who use nix know this  )

But I agree with you..This forum has been really constructive actually, and I hope it continues to be.

Roberto; sorry about previous name-calling.. If you won't anymore I won't

I'm a reasonable person, just.. be reasonable with me.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-03-18 17:00:54
Quote
Originally posted by meff

Roberto; sorry about previous name-calling.. If you won't anymore I won't


I'm sorry too. I won't. Let's stop this futile fight.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: PatchWorKs on 2002-03-19 08:42:14
Well, in thoose particular months many developers/companies have understood the importance of the Open Source.
Is the unique way to build a great product.
The problem is that many of them (ex. Microsoft' Shared Source) wants to rule over the code in their own way.
Sincerly i think this is stupid.

The best way (choosed by xiph guyz for Vorbis) is to release the utility software under the terms of the GNU GPL but libraries and SDKs  under the more business friendly BSD license.

I want remember to the Monkey's Audio author (and FLAC too) the approach that companies (PhatNoise (http://www.phatnoise.com/owners/softwarefaq.php), for example, builds a cool digital car-audio player) has for the patented formats.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: timcupery on 2002-03-19 18:46:10
thanks for all your work, Matt.  It is appreciated.  And while some people may wish you had taken another course of action with this latest development, it would be nice if those criticisms would always be phrased constructively and not ever personalize the deal.  Best wishes to you.
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: Frank Klemm on 2002-03-19 23:57:52
Quote
Originally posted by JohnV
A bit sad to say this, but when reading the monkeysaudio forum, you can certainly notice the large amount of people having problems ranging from small problems to MA just not being reliable in producing lossless results (crc problems etc.).


CRC problems are often a problem of system stability, an often underestimated problem.
My experiences are that ca. 20% of the systems
have such problems (RAM problems, IDE cable problems). With such systems you have always problems, with FLAC, MAC and also with MPC.
Sometimes also with kernel (bluescreen).
I had 3 such systems, all made problems
with FLAC, MAC and MPC. A stress test program
detected several bit errors per hour.

As long as there's no system call to force reading files from disk also "verify" options don't really help (on machines with enough RAM).

You only have no problems with programs which are
not often used. May be MAC is so often used and ...
Title: Monkey\'s Audio source code available !
Post by: fewtch on 2002-03-20 05:01:06
Quote
Originally posted by Frank Klemm


CRC problems are often a problem of system stability, an often underestimated problem.
My experiences are that ca. 20% of the systems
have such problems (RAM problems, IDE cable problems).

I agree...  this is a relatively common problem often overlooked (or blamed on Windows  ).  Sometimes overclocking can cause it too, especially clocking RAM out of specs.  There are utils that can test for probs like this, but I'd guess 20% is probably the right number!
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019