[FFmpeg-user] Resolve (was Re: key frame)

[Rob Hallam]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 at 03:00, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.imdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/2024 20.58, Rob Hallam wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 23:37, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.imdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Contrary to what is shown above, I did not write that.

Apologies, I was trying to cut out some of the half-dozen levels of
quoting and missed a section.

> But this is networking 101 and I don't want to spend time explaining things that
> probably don't need explaining.

I'm good thanks. It was a thought experiment for you, as your
responses strongly suggested that you thought all computers were
publicly routable all the time.

> I honestly don't argue, or, I don't mean to argue, or, I don't know it can be interpreted as
> arguing. I ask for facts, not notions.

I find these statements hard to reconcile with what you say elsewhere
and how you comport yourself.

> > That being the case, it was unkind of you to say (' ') he should use his head.
>
> What's the alternative?

Be kind.

There's several others on this list who would also benefit from
applying the golden rule.

> > You mention in another message to z! that you would need >1 IP or
> > NAT/port for mapping and you knew about non-routable addresses, so why
> > pretend what he was saying was incorrect?
>
> By non-routable addresses, you mean the class-C LAN IP addresses (i.e., 192.168.0), right?
> That doesn't have anything to do with anything.

A device with a non-world-routable address won't get any data packets
absent the router deciding for some reason to forward them.

> > Your choice. I quite like being able to access systems via ssh,
> > websites over http[s]...
>
> I access web sites and other people's computers and servers in their demilitarized zones via SSH all
> the time. Is there a reason you mention it? Do you think that blocking all the inbound ports would
> affect that?

Your service would definitely be affected if they took your statement,
"There's no good reason a computer should ever open inbound ports." at
face value yes.

> >... though
> > you've also had people who listen to you and want to help you get to
> > the bottom of the longstanding cutting/joining issue. But it seems to
> > me that you're going in the direction of, "screw 'em all, good or bad,
> > helpful or otherwise- I'll argue with each and every one of them!".
>  And I supply facts as I know them, not notions. I've seen
> quite a number of folks who know next to nothing, who go on to mislead other folks. I don't know
> whether they're being malicious.

I don't know what distinction you are making between a fact and a notion.

> > You didn't say or 'say' this, but it's the impression I'm getting, at
> > least. Maybe you don't care anymore, but maybe you don't realise this
> > is how you are coming across now, intentions notwithstanding.
>
> I never cared. You are naturally projecting your feelings on me as though you were the butt of the
> attacks.

Well, it's less projecting than trying to understand your motivations,
or empathy. Call it what you will. How you respond to the vicious
people is your business of course; my concern was that you don't
alienate those who are not vicious.

We've collectively spent a bunch of time discussing the finer points
of networking -- actually, the quite broad brush strokes of networking
-- because of some notion about an open port being tantamount to the
greatest sin.

We got there because some software (Resolve) was recommended, by way
of lengthy discussion about what tools are available to get info on /
analyse... (O)GOP debugging? Frame info?? It opens ports, so you don't
want to use it. Fine, don't use it.  Or: install it, unplug your
network, do your analysis for this bug with Resolve, uninstall,
reconnect the network.

We're way off in the weeds. Actually, my notion is that we're so far
away we've got a long trek just to get back to the weeds. I don't
think we're gonna convince you that listening on a port is an everyday
occurence for many things these days, even if we do convince you that
consumer gateways act as a network firewall these days; nor you us of
the converse.

I'm not sure any of this has been time well spent.

>  I think ffmpeg-user is pretty pathetic. But, it's exactly the way the FFmpeg developers
> want it to be. Otherwise, they would do something and it wouldn't be the way it is.

I believe this list needs much, much more visible moderation. It's a
pretty thankless task though, which I presume is why it tends to get
ignored.

> > That was intended as a friendly heads-up but I appreciate it may not
> > seem like that. How you use that information and respond is, like the
> > way you administer your computer and the software you use, your call.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rob
>
> Be happy -- Mark.

You too.

Rob