[vorbis] Why is Vorbis development slow?

[SwiftBiscuit]

--- Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:55:01AM -0700,
> SwiftBiscuit wrote:
> > It's been mentioned many times that the
> > problem is that everything depends on
> > Monty,
>
> Who? Who is going to do something about it?
Whomever needs to. Before it's decided who has to do
something, it has to be agreed *what* has to be done.
To reach agreement on that there has to be consensus
that *something* has to be done. It seems that there
isn't even a belief that something has to be done
about Monty being the Vorbis bottleneck!

> If you're talking about documenting the
> reference vorbis *encoder*...
This is quite off base, Ralph. You even quoted me
above saying what the problem is.

*snip*
> But who's going to write it? Monty could easily,
> but we'd rather he just improve the encoder.
> That's a more efficient use of his skill and
> talent...
Sorry Ralph, but that is most short-sighted and akin
to commercial suicide. Let's say that Vorbis continues
as it has been for the past year, with major
developments being made by one man and occasional
support from a handful of others. This time next year
Vorbis will have edged along, while AAC's *team* of
developers will have pushed their codec much further
forward.
Jack will be finding it even harder to attract money
since Vorbis would be clearly behind the cutting edge.

*more snipped*
> So if you want documentation of the reference
> encoder, write it yourself,
There's already an encoder. It's tuning that Vorbis is
behind on so that's what I suggested is documented.
I *would* do it myself if I understood it well enough.

<p>> or find someone willing to do it,
Perhaps I should make a post to the mailing list
suggesting that? Oh.

> or as jack suggested, provide the funds to 
> pay someone to do it.
If I had the funds I'd have paid for it already and be
presenting it to Xiph for them to polish.
I don't blame Jack for pushing the money issue. It's
his job to plug donations at every opportunity.

> It looks to me like you're also unwilling.
Hardly, Ralph. Hardly.

--- Graham Mitchell <graham at grahammitchell.com> wrote:
> How many people have you seen come up with a
> better general sorting algorithm than Dr.
> Hoare's quicksort?
I'm not saying that everyone should rewrite Vorbis. I
proposed that the tuning method be documented. Garf
didn't recreate Vorbis for his GT sets. Why should
everyone be forced to make the same amount of effort
each time they give their time to work on Xiph's
product?
Take low bitrate encoding below 64Kbps nominal, that's
not been tuned. It doesn't require a complete rewrite
of vorbis to tune it but there are plenty of people
who'd follow a tuning guide.

--- Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:
> We can only state our priorities for what
> interest that meets in others. You've stated
> your opinion in this manner, and we've
> stated ours.
Indeed, and despite people missing my point I don't
think I can be any clearer so I'll climb back in my
box now.

This thread is titled "Why is Vorbis development
slow?" not "Mark thinks this is a great idea and he'll
fight anyone who disagrees". I was hoping for a bunch
of creative proposals to help Jack & Co. decide what
to do next. Since I'm *not* one for just pointing at
things and demanding they get fixed, I was proactive
and made my own proposal.

If someone wants to pick this thread up from the top
and make their own suggestions, don't expect me to
contribute. I get the feeling this list would prefer
me to lay low for a while.

Regards,
~Mark.

<p><p><p>__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.