On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 12:10:34AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
This whole broadcast issue has brought up a lot of "new requirements" with no legitimate argument for how they fulfill any need that NUT does not already meet. "Because MPEG does it" is NOT A REASON!! Moreover, folks with MPEG broadcast experience (and who ACTUALLY LIKE MPEG) are not qualified to make recommendations about what's needed! NUT's goal was never to copy MPEG but to redo things and do them correctly from the ground up.
"People in the industry do it this way" is not an argument. As far as
One more related point: "Broadcast people will not adopt NUT unless we do X" is also not a valid argument, especially when X is simply "make it more similar to what they're used to", i.e. MPEG. There's no indication that they will adopt NUT if we bend over backwards for them, and in fact the more similar NUT is to MPEG, the less of a valid reason there is for switching. If anyone is ever to adopt NUT for broadcast (which I don't think should be a major goal early on anyway; video mastering/editing/production tools, underground scenes, etc. would be much better early-adoptors) it will be for the revolutionary qualities of NUT, not for its ability to immitate MPEG. If they want MPEG they'll just stick with MPEG, not chase after an MPEG-immitator. If NUT can get any major penetration/niche in other fields and prove its worth, universality, and device-independence, broadcast people might take notice 5-10 years down the line. But expecting them to jump to something new immediately is naive, and sacrificing good design principles for the sake of enticing them is utterly stupid. Rich