I use it to inspect video frames by frames, particularly being able to go back one frame. VLC doesn't support it, this thread about the feature is hilarious https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=120627
replies(19):
> this feature is algorithmically impossible
> You're just looking at one specific video, not the general problem.
> is not generally possible.
As a fellow multimedia dev, man, who cares? Sometimes we forget that software ought to be useful, not hypothetical ideals of truth. Just implement the feature for those codecs that support it and which probably are in the 98% percentile of what users actually use, regardless of the damned "general case".
Or accept and announce shamelessly that you don't have either the knowledge or the development resources to tackle such a complex feature. But excuses about not being possible for absolutely every possible codec in a completely generic way is just denying that the world is just a chaotic and dirty place where things are not ideal nor perfect. Just give your users a real-world solution (or rejection).
I don't know how they get away with that though. In the coding work that I do, I'm constantly dealing with rules that have exceptions on top of exceptions. I just need to special-case some things, because the alternative is not delivering what the business needs.
In your job, you have to special-case some things because the alternative is not delivering what the boss wants. Regardless of the problems this may cause, or how much tech debt it generates - those are (in the end) business decisions, and while you can make a case to the boss that implementing the special case feature is going to cause huge problems, it's the boss's call as to whether it gets implemented.
In an open-source project the maintainer is the boss. If the maintainer thinks that the feature is going to cause problems, they're totally free to say "no, I'm not going to implement that feature". And, ofc, because it's FOSS, the user is totally free to fork it, or submit a PR for the feature, or whatever.
> just got here from a Google search. I gotta say the replies from Remi sound defensively toxic. I'm not here to program the app, I'm just here to find a simple feature and/or request it.
I think Remi sounds curt rather than toxic. There's no automatic right for anyone to go to a FOSS project and request a feature and have it implemented. The maintainer is perfectly within their rights to just say "no". It's their project, their code, their time, and they're free to do/not do anything they like with it.
> If it's so easy, why are you not doing it? Talk is cheap.
> I'll be waiting for your patch. Surely you're not as lazy and incompetent as the existing volunteer developers.
I'd say that is pretty toxic.
Specifically, that is no way to talk about other volunteer developers that contribute their time. It is precisely the kind of language that keeps people away from contributing to open source. It's the very definition of toxic.
> that is no way to talk about other volunteer developers that contribute their time.
He is not dissing the other developers. He is one of those developers that had been called lazy and incompetent by the forum posters. For example (from the thread):
> it's mostly an excuse to not implement the feature (and be "cool" about it with one-word answers).
> Please consider implementing this. It's not hard.
> All of the players I've named are open source, so it's easy to check how they are doing it.
> Seriously how hard is it to implement it? All Ive been hearing from the developers are excuses, excuses, excuses. I dont see how other players were able to have it. This is just pure laziness.
> I'm not here to program the app, I'm just here to find a simple feature and/or request it.
Personally, I would hold the people using a free product and begging for features without contributing anything to a higher standard than the developers that donate their time implementing it.
But I stand by the broader point that I do not think his attitude is at all constructive or helpful, and while I am sure he is fed of up what he views as entitled users this is not a productive way to handle it. The toxicity is that it casts shade on FOSS and pushes people away from the community. And VLC would be half what it is today without it's users. He would do well to remember that, too.
I disagree. It would be exactly the same as it is now without the users. The users have not contributed anything to the project. Popularity doesn't write code, it just creates communication overhead.
Again, this is not commercial software. Commercial software needs popularity. For FOSS projects, popularity is cool and can be an ego-boost for the maintainers, even open some doors and get some funding, but it's not the point of thing (and never covers costs anyway). The point is to write some good code that scratches some itch the maintainers have.
That whole point of view from the users, of "you owe us because your thing is popular now" is toxic entitlement. If you didn't contribute to the project, you didn't affect it, and you're owed nothing, absolutely nothing, by the maintainers. Everyone would do well to remember that.