[FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch

[softworkz .]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2025 16:44
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
> 
> softworkz . (HE12025-05-28):
> >						 Also, I cannot
> > consider people as trustworthy while they are going crazy.
> 
> Oh, yes, I dare say insulting your betters is the best strategy.

I'm afraid to see you struggling with language issues. To explain it in 
simple words: We all can have moments where we might get 
crazy about something. That's why it would be unfair and insulting 
to say that people who are getting crazy are not trustworthy.

What has been said instead, is that people who've gone crazy are not 
trustworthy IN THAT MOMENT (=> "while").


> > Misunderstanding 1: What is being launched?
> > ===========================================
> 
> People have pointed to you the use of system() because it is an focal
> point of all the wrong things

Oh - when you have knowledge about "all the wrong things", then I'm sure
it won't take you - the knowledgeable senior mentor member - much
effort, to educate me - the unexperienced novice developer, who had - in his 
ignorance and lack of knowledge - accidentally chosen to use a "bad" API.
Please be specific by explaining what is wrong about the specific use case and language,
and which bad things could happen!?


> an easy way [is] to get into the
> documentation and learn about the issues of what you are doing.

This gives just testimony that you've never read that documentation.


> > I have no intentions towards getting this merged.
> 
> Good. Maybe get over yourself and find a safe way of implementing it

Nay. Which part is not understandable in my reply?


> instead of using it as an excuse to play the victim.

That's in fact a great new thing that I've learned just recently here:

What an incredibly ingenious attack it is to attack someone by
saying they should not play "the victim".


[2nd email]
> > That nobody has responded is not much surprising
> Yes, nobody responded after less than twelve hours, that must be a
> conspiracy.

Not at all - but if none have responded after 12h, how likely
would it remain to be for the 

have been to get responses from everybody?
I.e., the probability for all replying under the condition that
nobody would have replied within the first 12h.

Wasn't "Math" a kind of hobby of yours? (evening school?)
Maybe you can ask your teacher about how this works.


> Also, for pity's sake, stop sucking all the air from this mailing-list.

Oh well, this is just the prologue. The main chapter is yet to come.
But I'll give it a little time for the questions. These are serious and 
not of rhetorical nature.


Regards,
sw