Skip to main content
Topic: Monkey\'s Audio source code available ! (Read 10015 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #25
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.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #26
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.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #27
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.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #28
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.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #29
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.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #30
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

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #31
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 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

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #32
Quote
Originally posted by krsna77

Anyone who's payed attention to the whole OpenBSD vs. IPF 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.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #33
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.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #34
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, for example, builds a cool digital car-audio player) has for the patented formats.

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #35
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.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #36
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 ...
--  Frank Klemm

Monkey\'s Audio source code available !

Reply #37
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