Free and Open Source Software

parent

[+] stinky@redlemmy.com -16 points 10 months ago (1 child)

This is a matter of bad journalism, not my personal taste. Ciao

parent

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 17 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Bad journalism has nothing to do with this. Literal first paragraph of the article:

You may never have heard of FFmpeg, but you’ve used it. This open source program’s robust multimedia framework is used to process video and audio media files and streams across numerous platforms and devices. It provides tools and libraries for format conversion, aka transcoding, playback, editing, streaming, and post-production effects for both audio and video media.

If you weren't paying attention until someone pointed out your error, just say that. We won't crucify you.

parent

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I'm attacking the author's bad journalism. You are defending the validity of the format. You are wrong not because the format is valid but because you are defending a point I am not attacking.

I'm sorry. It's an egregious and embarrassing error and whoever educated you in rhetoric should refund your money, assuming you paid for it. ciao

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] lukecooperatus@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

You didn't make any substantive critiques about the journalism, so why would anyone be responding to that? All you've said is that you "don't care about ffmpeg", which is dismissive of the software itself, so yeah obviously people are going to be responding about the software.

parent

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com -5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Why are you responding to me?

parent

[–] lukecooperatus@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Because you're the account who posted what I'm responding to.

parent

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 6 points 9 months ago

Alright, lemme try to explain this:

You stated you don't care about FFmpeg.
Someone asked why and stated it was useful.
You brought up "bad journalism" in response, implying your lack of care for FFmpeg was due to the article not describing why it was useful.
To refute your accusation of bad journalism, I pointed out the first paragraph of the article, which directly makes a case for FFmpeg and which you seemed to have missed.
You somehow seem to think I'm defending FFmpeg in some fashion, thus missing my point. (Also, you seem to be calling FFmpeg a "format," presumably because it has "mpeg" in the name? FFmpeg handles a litany of formats.)

The author has not done bad journalism. You just missed stuff while reading. That's fine so long as you address it. I would ask you not insult me for pointing this out, though.