On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:52:17AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:37:27PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
NUT's goal was never to copy MPEG but to redo things and do them correctly from the ground up.
Yes, and i certainly would prefer if things can be done better than mpeg. The problem ATM is that "things" can not be done.
This is a plain falsehood. No one has demonstrated anything concrete that cannot be done.
Ohh yes i have. But we can start a game where i give you nut packets and you tell me the clock drift between your and my clock.
"People in the industry do it this way" is not an argument. As far as I can tell, everything done with MPEG broadcast can be done much simpler, for instance the time synchronization issue. Due to NUT's extremely strict interleaving rules, frame dts ALREADY serves as a synchronization timestamp!! There's no need for separate timestamps!
Please stop the insanity! NUT IS FINISHED. If anyone claims not, please show real, demonstratable bugs, not differences from MPEG. A difference from MPEG is not a bug but a sign of good design.
I think ive shown a few fatal deficiencies in the current design in my previous mail.
And I debunked them, yet again.
You have not debunked any single argument brought up in the broadcast discussion. You just ignore what people say and repeat in different words sketched solutions like a kid telling me i can divide by 0. Of course while keeping the standard axioms of a field valid. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even known they had done so. -- Xenophanes