ogg prak: xiph.org's solution to the .ogm vs. .ogg problem

[canadian_fbi]

i don't remember seeing this over here at doom9's today, so i thought i'd bring it up. copied from hydrogenaudio's forums (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2749):

<metrom> thanks for the Vorbis 1.0 release. but what's your plan now? what will you work on?
<Vakor> metrom: world domination
<metrom> you have already started that, just give it some time...
<metrom> ogg theora?
<Emmett> Ogg Theora's the 'big push,' but we have some more stuff in the background, as well
<Garf> metrom: catch up sleep for a month, then theora and further developmen on the ogg layer
<Emmett> I think we might actually release Ogg Prak next week, so that's a nice little bonus
<Emmett> Ogg Prak: Because Windows Is Fuckin' Retarded.
<Emmett> Ogg Prak is a launcher for Win32... You assign the .ogg extension to Ogg Prak, and then you configure Prak to say 'Here's my audio player' and 'Here's my video player'
<Emmett> So we can keep the extension .ogg for audio *and* video files, and Prak will sort it out.
<greenskeleton> and it will run seemlessly in the background?
<Emmett> greenskeleton: Yup.
<kare> Yay, kill .ogm.
<Emmett> Ogg Prak is kind of cool, I talked about it with a developer a couple months ago, he showed up last week and said, 'Merry Christmas!' and gave me a completed app.
<Vakor> We talked about doing something like that a year or two back, but at the time decided that it was too utterly pointless to bother with
<Emmett> Okay, I'm going to go tend to my wife
<Emmett> I'll bbl

boy, they really don't like the .ogm solution to video files using the ogg container, do they...

[Koepi]

[EDITED]

Well, I went over to chat on IRC and as sum up all I can tell is that those guys are really really bad, and even after apologizing for my initial bad behaviour they kept asking me to leave...

So those guys are REALLY selfish and self-loving (tell it to the hand...).

They don't care and don't really listen to arguments.

Well, I won't change anything in oggmux just because of this.

Xiph are bad people, period.

[diji1]

... i just read that story and already someone has posted :D . my opinion is that it seems like a very half-a**ed fix to the problem. let's hope this doesn't involve any memory resident programs ... i wish the ogg team every bit of luck with the whole project -- but -- it seems to me like they're turning their back on a large chunk of their potential market here by not designing the spec for what is and probably will remain the largest users of their product -- that'd be the world of windows, clunky as it may seem to them (?). presumably they intend to pull in some return for their hard work at some stage, this is making that seem , well, unlikely. x millions of windows users will just have more reason to stick with mp3 - and who can blame them. :|

edit:
Koepi : Such ignorant bastards don't deserve the hard work of me or Tobias...

yes, totally agreed ... everybody no doubt has been working their proverbial hearts out but some people's efforts seem misplaced really, it's a shame. amazing - one would almost think that they don't _want_ the codec / project to suceed on the _windows_ platform. good luck, it's looking like they're really going to need it unless they want ogg to remain a relative obscurity.

[avih]

this has nothing to do with standards. their standard defines what's INSIDE the file and not the file extension.

imho it won't take any memory at all. all it should do is launch an application when u dbl-click an ogg file, and that application will launch either your preffered audio player, or your preffered video player, which you configure prior.

and they already said that you can use eny extension that u like, eventhough they prefere ogg.

if you follow their preference and use ogg, you'll be able to use this new tool to be able to launch different apps for audio/video playback. that's all.

cheers
avi

[Milkman Dan]

Well, we all know what *I* think. ;)

[DSPguru]

@Koepi
you did a brilliant job with OggMux, and the xiph team should really thank you (and tobias, of course) for the popularity you gave ogg&vorbis.

imho,
if this is a true open project, there's no reason to prevent you from choosing the file's extension.

on the other hand, i ALWAYS choose the file extensions on my computer. also for closed projects ;).
for instance, on my computer at work, i have made those aliases :
dxe is exe. (small patch in registry)
lve is mp3. (small patch to in_mp3.dll)


ogg prak is redundant.

[rc55]

Jeeesus guys,

Like, calm down, or something.

Regardless of xiph.org agreeing or disagreeing with OGM the Vorbis format essentially is open and freely modifiable. Its not a slap in the face to OGM, its just their intended way of handling the situation, and if it has to be critisized, the best way of raising an argument is by emailing Emmett or Monty directly. IRC in my opinion isnt the best way.

My own personal opinion is that they are doing the right thing, by giving Windows users the choice of how to run their Ogg Streams (obviously vital when video is in the stream also). If this wasnt the case, a dedicated player application would more than likely have to be developed (like Quicktime) and would restrict its flexibility.

Ogg + Vorbis has been given to us as a gift and we can use it as we wish. Don't take it for granted.

Ruairi

[DSPguru]

nice to have you here, rc55 :D.

[Jon Ingram]

Xiph are bad people, period.

The only person I see here that is spouting wild, ignorant, uninformed, pointlessly beligerent nonsense is *you*, Koepi. No-one else.

Calm down a moment and realise that you are *not* the centre of the universe. So you've written a small closed source component? That's great. When someone asked if you were going to open the source so that they could add some features, you had exactly the same reaction as this. You are not king, although you can behave as such in your little message board ghettos.

[rc55]

And another thing...

Hoorah for OGM!

You've done an excellent thing here and utilised the Vorbis format for something highly productive. I love it.

Remember Xiph is about Open Multimedia, without being affected by patents. Thier front is about license free media and sadly muxing mpeg-4 video with ogg is not in their vision. They can choose to be as stubborn as they want, but with using Vorbis in OGM you've probably made them smile anyway by utilising Vorbis.

So keep with it. There's absolutely no reason to be bitter.

And hi to DSPGuru (I hope I'm not an unwanted voice here).

Ruairi

[DSPguru]

Originally posted by rc55
And hi to DSPGuru (I hope I'm not an unwanted voice here).

Ruairi why would you think that.. :) ?

[rc55]

DSPGuru,

At a mighty 2 posts I'm hardly the one to start harping on at the mighty Doom 9 Team Henchmen.

Ruairi

[Ughie]

Originally posted by Jon Ingram

The only person I see here that is spouting wild, ignorant, uninformed, pointlessly beligerent nonsense is *you*, Koepi. No-one else.

Calm down a moment and realise that you are *not* the centre of the universe. So you've written a small closed source component? That's great. When someone asked if you were going to open the source so that they could add some features, you had exactly the same reaction as this. You are not king, although you can behave as such in your little message board ghettos.
Did you ever read the other post ogm vs ogg file extension, and about that small closed source component, with that component everyone can use ogg/vorbis. I don't see everyone playing with graphedit to mux some streams to a ogg file. And maybe if you dig in the older posts you would know why his oggmux isn't open source.
I haven't a high post number, but i bet I have read a lot more posts than you.

[avih]

ppl, try to be nice to eachother, and don't start a flamewar. act civil, even if you think other ppl don't.

cheers
avi

[robUx4]

They had 2 choices :

Allow different extensions for video and audio (what comes next ?)
Create a windows hack

They chose the less obvious and most complicated one... Not sure the users will follow (they already know how to use Windows, why would they have to change or learn something new ?).

Also is Ogg-Prak going to work on Linux and Mac OS too ? I think they have the same problem...


Anyway, does anyone know anything about "Ogg Theora" ? Is it similar to what Transors do ?
http://mcf.sf.net/transor/

If so a merge would help both sides.

[Jon Ingram]

Originally posted by robUx4
[B]They had 2 choices :

Allow different extensions for video and audio (what comes next ?)
Create a windows hack

They chose the less obvious and most complicated one...


Utterly utterly utterly wrong

Obviously you're not very good at reading, so I'll spell out for you what Emmett has already said in words which, this time, you might understand.

You can use *any* file extension you want.
It is *suggested* that using .OGG would be best, as the container *is* an OGG container.
If you want to use .OGG, then *go ahead*.
If you want to use .OGM, then *go ahead*.
If you want to use .LOOK_AT_THE_MONKEY, then *go ahead*.
It is *suggested* that using .OGG would be best, as the container *is* an OGG container.
You don't *have* to use .OGG.
Got that?
You don't *have* to use .OGG.
*Really*.
*If* you decide to use .OGG for everything, then they have written a small utility which will help you launch the correct program.
This program is called Prak.
You do *not* have to use Prak.
You don't *have* to use .OGG.
Got that?
You do *not* have to use Prak.
You don't *have* to use .OGG.
Got that?
*Really*

[robUx4]

I think I didn't really get it ;)

If you want to spend time on unnecessary tools that's OK with me. Feel free.

As a basic user it just seems that this Prak is a tool that says "Ogg is best when used with Prak". ie the rest is not good/supported. It just seems to serve marketing goals not user needs.

[Jon Ingram]

As a basic user it just seems that this Prak is a tool that says "Ogg is best when used with Prak". ie the rest is not good/supported. It just seems to serve marketing goals not user needs.
No marketing involved. It was written because people asked for it, and because it'll become more and more necessary as more types of file use ogg as their container.

These are the things which already use ogg

Vorbis - MP3 competitor
Speex - ultra-low-bitrate audio
FLAC - lossless audio
Vorbis+DivX
MP3+DivX
anything else in an 'OGM' AVI alternative

Either you use a different filetype for each type of contents, or you have to be more general. Already, using ogg as an AVI alternative means that you need a general 'media player' framework.

Because Vorbis is the first finished component to use ogg, a lot of people have got used to the idea that .ogg is only used for Vorbis files. This was only ever going to be a temporary situation.

[sysKin]

Do you want to know my opinion? If you don't, just skip the post.

My opinion is: windows uses extensions for only one purpose: to help it's users to see what file they have. Extension decides about file's information that we can read in explorer; decides about file's icon that we can see in explorer, and decides about a program used to open the file contents (by explorer, btw).

Of course we can argue if MS made a mistake here, or at which point of history MS could change this, or forget about extensions... but that's not the point.

The point is that what I said is a fact and I cannot see a reason to fight against it.
Users are not interested to see "OGG stream" file-type - they want to know if it's a movie or a music or something else.
Similary, they don't want to see a cute ogg icon - they want to know if it's a movie or music or something else.
Finally, they don't want to have an 'OGG stream player' - they want to have a music player or video player. (YES I know you all know that).
Now the best part - all those things can be easly done by using different file extensions, because this is EXACTLY what extensions do. This is their ONLY purpose. And they are already there. They've been doing this job for many years.

Firstly, by creating additional program, you solve only part of the problem - icons etc remain.
But more importanty, you throw away existing system. A system that simply works, and has been doing it's job for long.
And most importantly: new system, which is the program you've created, has NO important advantages over the existing extension system. The end-effect is the same - it runs the player user wishes. Where's the advantage, then? I can't see it, sorry.

I'll repeat: file extension is NOT used to give technical information about container. It's used to help users by providing quick info about contents - and this info is also expected by windows' gui.

[end of my humble opinion]

[MaTTeR]

Why has this subject raised it's ugly head again? I was only gone for 6 weeks and I thought this had been resolved:confused:

I recall Emmett telling us in a private meeting a few months ago to directly contact him if we had any concerns regarding this issue. My impression of our meeting was that OGM would most likely be put in the specs eventually, once he had enough ammunition (reasons) to convince his dev team. Has anyone contacted Emmett? He clearly stated that he wanted to be the main contact should we have any concerns regarding the OGM extension, this would cause less confusion.

[tangent]

I don't really see what the problem here is besides a whole lot of over-reacting.

Ogg Prak is supposed to give users a choice. There are users who want all Ogg container files to be .ogg and there are users who want to seperate the audio and the video containers. .ogm and Ogg Prak together give people the choice.

If you notice carefully, the Xiph people did not create Ogg Prak to kill .ogm, but to provide a solution for people who want all their Oggs to be .ogg. Many people, however, have been led to believe that Xiph is trying to kill .ogm, starting from Kare's comment "Yay, kill ogm" in the irc log and the topic of this thread itself, both of which are extremely misleading and do not really represent the views of Xiph.

Ogg Prak is not a redundant or unnecessary tool. Vorbis and Video are not the only applications currently using the Ogg Vorbis stream. Currently FLAC and Speex are also beginning to use the Ogg stream with more coming up (Theora, Tarkin...), and Prak will become very necessary then.

Furthermore Ogg Prak is being developed by a VERY RESPECTED MEMBER of this community. His identity is being kept secret for the moment, I've talked to him and the poor thing is so upset over this argument he's so afraid that "Koepi will hate him for this". Geez... look what you've done. I think many of you would change your mind when you find out the identity of this developer. Assuming you don't brand him a traitor, that is.

Koepi, what you have done have made people lose their respect for you and hurt your reputation. Unfortunately, this cannot be repaired simply by an apology. Acceptance of an apology is not necessarily readily given especially in this case where you have aggravated many people, and you cannot blame them for taking it badly, and you cannot demand that they accept your apology. This kind of things will need time to repair, and they have every right to ask you to leave to give themselves a chance to cool down. You cannot blame them for not wanting to carry on with the argument because they were definitely not in the right state of mind for debates, and it doesn't help that you were the one who started the flames.

Then again, I also won't take to heart everything that Vakor says. He tends to be nasty to everyone, and I myself have been a victim for no good reason.

[Jon Ingram]

I agree - file extensions are useful for humans as well as for computers. I can see the pragmatic solution of having .ogg for Vorbis (for legacy reasons, and because Windows users hate file extensions with more than 3 letters), .flac for FLAC, .spx for Speex, .ogm for ogg-contained movies, etc. There is nothing inherently evil about this.

Prak is just there to help you if, for some reason, you decide *not* to use explanatory file extensions. It's really nothing to get het up about. Just carry on doing what you normally do. No-one is going to come down from the sky and take your computer away because you're using the 'wrong' file extension.

Now, please, get back to talking about something else - *anything* else.

(Incidentally, you were wrong about the Windows Explorer icons - you can easily write an extension which will analyse the contents of a file, and give it varying icons. There are MP3 analysis tools which do this, for example).

[Jon Ingram]

Then again, I also won't take to heart everything that Vakor says. He tends to be nasty to everyone, and I myself have been a victim for no good reason.
Vakor's a teddy bear. He just needs love (http://www.bearhughollow.com/000mother.gif). Remember - arguing with someone on IRC does not mean that they hate you.

[robUx4]

I know who did OGG Prak and I highly respect the man.

As I said before it's sad to spend time on an unnecessary tool :(

BTW, does OGG Prak works with WinMX ? eDonkey ?
:p

[robUx4]

Originally posted by Jon Ingram
Prak is just there to help you if, for some reason, you decide *not* to use explanatory file extensions. It's really nothing to get het up about. Just carry on doing what you normally do. No-one is going to come down from the sky and take your computer away because you're using the 'wrong' file extension.

The question is who are these people who prefer to use the same extension for their audio AND video (AND maybe images or whatever) rather than having different ones.
That's an interresting question IMO. (some ppl with twisted mind I guess)

It could change the conception I have of how the average user react in front of a machine/computer...

[robUx4]

PS1 : More choice can lead to confusion sometimes.

PS2 : Just wonder why Microsoft used different extensions for AVI, WAV, ASF, BMP, whatever (I think they are all RIFF).

[Jon Ingram]

It could change the conception I have of how the average user react in front of a machine/computer... [/B]
The average user can't double-click, and doesn't know that you can move windows by dragging the title bar.
The average user has been suckered into spending $3000 on a PC which will only be used to write emails and the odd letter.
The average user is a very scary animal :).

[tangent]

Originally posted by Jon Ingram

Vakor's a teddy bear. He just needs love (http://www.bearhughollow.com/000mother.gif). Remember - arguing with someone on IRC does not mean that they hate you.
No he's not! I'm the teddy bear. See my avatar :)

[Doom9]

having been there during the initial ogm discussion and getting a good beating myself for daring to speak up for windows users let me clarify a few things.

first of all a link to the original thread about the issue: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26079&highlight=ogm
if you fast forward to the end you'll see how things have been standing these recent weeks. Now I don't know how many emails emmett received.. I guess not enough but that's up to him to answer. As for my part soon after closing I got the feeling that it was not such a smart thing to do.. I think we would've gotten much more attention if the thread would've kept on going.. but it would also have ended up in a lot of people flaming Xiph. That was the same reason why I never mentioned the issue in the news.

if I recall correctly oggmux initially created ogg files. Before that my guide even suggested to use the .avi extension for such files as people knew this extension and you wouldn't have to register yet another extension.. and the guide that tobias wrote suggested to use the .ogg extension as in the specs (or the part of the specs that exists). Later on, we switched, first to .ogg only to see people getting confused as they now had .ogg audio files and .ogg a/v files. So.. the extension was changed to make that difference. The reasons for that decision have always been the same. understandably koepi, who switched from .ogg to .ogm due to user feedback and was probably expecting ogm to be adopted officially since that was part of the deal as outlined before. I think you can't blame a developer who listens to his users and adopts his program accordingly if he then has to hear that he's wrong. I took classes in usability engineering and one thing I'm certain of is that the user is always right.. not the developer. You cannot sell your product to the user if he thinks it should work differently. and I think that just because the developers like a certain extension more that this is necessarily the best solution for the end user. Right now all the people creating ogms are using windows and statements like <Emmett> Ogg Prak: Because Windows Is Fuckin' Retarded. speak for itself. You can't give 95% of the PC user the finger and not expect at least some to take offense.

anyways.. I have neither will nor time to get all worked up about this again. I do recall emmett saying that we should just do whatever we wanted and that's just what I'm going to do. I use a different extension to be able to quickly make the difference between what files contain. It has already mentioned how many a/v formats use or will use the ogg container.. the more there are the more difficult it gets to manage them. So people will always use their custom extensions.. maybe I like to call video only theora file .doom9video, and vorbis audio files .doom9audio and nobody can tell me what I'm going on my own pc. That being said I'm also here to deliver what people ask for... imho they want an easy way to know what files contain and ogm has worked for them. So specs or not specs if I have to decide if I change the guide to rename the oggmux output to .ogg and then explain how to install and use ogg prak or leave things as they are I will just leave things as they are. In the end it's a political decision on how you name your files.. if you want to be politically correct you can rename the oggmux output to .ogg and then use ogg prak to launch the appropriate player and if you prefer to have things simple you will associate .ogm with your favorite media player and be done with it. End of story!

[canadian_fbi]

well i guess i didn't really mean to imply that .ogg vs. .ogm was a *problem* by the subject of this thread, except for certain people who want to maintain a uniform standard extension for ogg containers. i do agree that it is xiph just giving people another choice, however i think that this opens the door to a lot of confusion coming up. is it possible that a basic user, who maybe just downloaded winamp and found it plays some .ogg audio format that sounds pretty good, won't ever see or know of ogg prak, and then when they click on certain .ogg files that are supposed to contain movie files, bad stuff happens? or that one has a collection of movies and clips that are a mix of extensions, because there's no agreement as to what it should be. this isn't really a concern for me since i'll name my stuff what i want and know what it is anyway (and mode 2 cd maker renames my movies to .dat anyway :)), but i do worry that a lack of agreement could create a lot of confusion down the road. so i don't think it's a conspiracy by xiph or some effort to undermine koepi/tobias's work, just a simple program that will give users a choice, but it could have some negative consequences. just my very humble opinion.

[Emmettfish]

MaTTeR said:

"I recall Emmett telling us in a private meeting a few months ago to directly contact him if we had any concerns regarding this issue. My impression of our meeting was that OGM would most likely be put in the specs eventually, once he had enough ammunition (reasons) to convince his dev team. Has anyone contacted Emmett? He clearly stated that he wanted to be the main contact should we have any concerns regarding the OGM extension, this would cause less confusion."

Yup, that's what I said. I also said, 'Please send me E-mails with OGM in the subject, so that I can point to a huge pile of E-mails that makes it clear that this needs to be addressed.' I was told that I was going to be mailflooded with responses, and that people were going to get the word out and I would have enough feedback to officially support another extension.

Official count of the number of E-mails I've gotten, asking us to officially support the .ogm extension: Six.

Koepi says:

"Xiph are bad people, period."

Come on, now. I've bent over backwards to help people out, I've gone out of my way to make sure people get a chance to be heard. As a team, we produce one of the best audio codecs on the planet, and we do it for absolutely free.

Obviously, if we're such bad people, we should probably just stop all work immediately. It's the only real solution, isn't it? We're just a bunch of bad men that want to make people angry, and we don't produce anything that's remotely worthwhile.

No one has said that .ogm will not eventually be officially supported by Xiph.org, but comments like yours make it really, really difficult to hear people out and make the right decision. Comments like yours make me think, 'Oh, well, I've only gotten six E-mails about this, and when I get comments like Koepi's, why should I devote even another minute to thinking about this?'

"So those guys are REALLY selfish and self-loving (tell it to the hand...). They don't care and don't really listen to arguments."

I disagree, but if we really are selfish, self-loving, uncaring and unwilling to listen, it's probably because of comments like yours.

tangent says:

"If you notice carefully, the Xiph people did not create Ogg Prak to kill .ogm, but to provide a solution for people who want all their Oggs to be .ogg. Many people, however, have been led to believe that Xiph is trying to kill .ogm, starting from Kare's comment "Yay, kill ogm" in the irc log and the topic of this thread itself, both of which are extremely misleading and do not really represent the views of Xiph."

That's exactly right. Ogg Prak is meant to help out Windows people who choose to use .ogg for all their ogg files. Anyone that wants to keep using .ogm is more than welcome to do so, and they have my blessing to do anything they want.

I'm sorry for a lot of the chest-beating and screaming that's gone on in this thread, and I'm really sorry if you believe the 'Xiph is evil' hype that's being thrown around. It makes me kind of sad, actually. We bust our asses to produce good free stuff, and we wake up on Monday morning to read all about how evil we are, especially on a topic that we've worked so hard on communicating about.

We'll always have trolls and screamers, and I accept that as 'part of playing the game,' but today, I'm more than a little disappointed.

Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation

[robUx4]

Originally posted by Emmettfish
That's exactly right. Ogg Prak is meant to help out Windows people who choose to use .ogg for all their ogg files. Anyone that wants to keep using .ogm is more than welcome to do so, and they have my blessing to do anything they want.

Does Xiph (or you) has an opinion on how files should be named ?

I think you should in order to make the format consistent.

[Jon Ingram]

Does Xiph (or you) has an opinion on how files should be named ?

I think you should in order to make the format consistent.
- Do you mind if I call you James, or Jimmy?
- I don't mind, although I call myself James
- But you *have* to mind. I'm going to call you Jimmy
- ... ok, if you want. I think James sounds better, though.
- What? So you *do* mind, and you're just insulting me by not telling me!
- No, I don't mind at all, although *I* prefer James.
- So *do* you mind if I call you James, or Jimmy?
- Go away
- No, tell me. You have to *only* be called one or the other.
- I told you, I don't care.
- So, which one should everyone use? James, or Jimmy?

Leave it alone.

[Emmettfish]

robUx4 says:

"Does Xiph (or you) has an opinion on how files should be named? I think you should in order to make the format consistent."

I think we tend to agree on .ogg for everything, because it's a container, like QuickTime's .mov 'format.' That's our take on it, but just because that's our official view, it doesn't mean you should take it as the absolute last word for your own purposes.

One of the reasons we exist is to promote alternatives and choice; if we were running around stomping on people's ability to choose for themselves (even when it comes to our stuff), it would be insanely counter-productive.

Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation

[robUx4]

Originally posted by Emmettfish
One of the reasons we exist is to promote alternatives and choice; if we were running around stomping on people's ability to choose for themselves (even when it comes to our stuff), it would be insanely counter-productive.

I understand the concept of letting people choose. But this might also be a counter-productive side too.

There could be 25 different extensions that *regular* OGG-reading apps should have to handle if you allow anything.

It would also make things complicated for nothing if OGG-reading apps was only registered to use .ogg only.

I'm not sure anarchy is very productive in this world.

(BTW now that everyone is happy that Winamp handles .ogg, you want to use another app and have Winamp register to it :( )

[Doom9]

we have quote tags for easier quoting and a quote button on this board ;)
Official count of the number of E-mails I've gotten, asking us to officially support the .ogm extension: Six. which confirms my suspicion. we all made a mistake thinking that people would bother sending emails. They made their voice heard on a thread here (link in my last post) and it always works better if you can do this in a coordinated fashion than an individual one. And the fact that the wish to receive emails was not properly communicated didn't help with that either. This is clearly "our" fault.

especially on a topic that we've worked so hard on communicating about.
apparently you didn't do a good enough job ;) it doesn't take a marketing genius to see that the way windows as a platform and windows users are regarded in the xiph circles is doing you a lot of harm. Read up on the TDX rules.. especially int21h's comments about xiph here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29083&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

[Emmettfish]

Doom9 says:

"apparently you didn't do a good enough job (wink-smiley) it doesn't take a marketing genius to see that the way windows as a platform and windows users are regarded in the xiph circles is doing you a lot of harm."

I don't think it's doing us a lot of harm, and you can't give me any evidence to the contrary. You can't tell me that the reason mp3 and MPEG-4 are so popular is because we don't run Windows. All you have to go on is what you're reading here, and if you think this web-board is a sufficient microcosm on which to extract empirical data for all Windows users everywhere, you're insane.

Besides, how is this issue doing harm to our goal, which is to create, produce and maintain open multimedia? It's not. You might argue that this issue causes an adoption problem, but I'm inclined to disagree.

Further still, Windows users aren't being held in any special disregard or disdain by Xiph.org. It's ridiculous to assume that we hate Windows people, or that we can't stand Windows. I use Windows to compose music, and it works just fine. I guess we'll add 'self-hating' to the list of negative qualities possessed by Xiph people.

Windows doesn't do invasive filetyping (while nearly every other OS on the planet does). This is why the problem exists. This is why we're taking the time to discuss options and ways around the problem. We have not made a decision one way or the other regarding the inclusion of .ogm into the specification.

Ogg Prak is not a method by which to 'kill .ogm.' Ogg Prak is a method by which people can continue to use our recommended file extension if they choose to do so. Those who do not choose to use our recommended file extension are free to not do so.

So, I hope that helps people out, or at least gives them a modicum of acceptable low-down.

Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation

[Doom9]

I don't think it's doing us a lot of harm, and you can't give me any evidence to the contrary hmm.. then what about http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29083&perpage=20&pagenumber=2 ? I'll make it even easier and quote directly The narrowmindedness here is the developers that refuse to support Operating Systems that are still at use with the mainstream public. I'm sure it's not the userbase you care about but you wanted proof and that's what I gave you. It also has nothing to do with the userbase of this forum because this isn't the place for the release scene to hang out ;)

anyways.. we can discuss this to death. If I were in your schoes I certainly would not ever make such statements but as I'm not it's not my problem. only time will tell if such statements will make a difference...

[robUx4]

Originally posted by Emmettfish
Windows doesn't do invasive filetyping (while nearly every other OS on the planet does). This is why the problem exists. This is why we're taking the time to discuss options and ways around the problem. We have not made a decision one way or the other regarding the inclusion of .ogm into the specification.

Might be off-topic but, what is invasive filetyping ?

[tanksimpson]

I am confused on one point of this debate. My understanding is that the OGM "developers" are mad at the OGG developers for not accepting their .ogm extension as standard for OGGs containing video, and take this as an insult to all the blood, sweat and tears they invested in "developing" the .ogm uhh... "standard". My question is: WHAT precisely did the OGM developers "develop" other than the letter "m"? Don't forget to put that bullet point on your "programming" resume, guys - "Summer 2002 - Revolutionized computer/multimedia world by exchanging the letter "g" for the letter "m" in an obscure three letter file extension". The sweet job offers will start rolling in, just you wait and see!

Jeeze, no wonder the Xiph guys are pissy - they do REAL work for YEARS and produce a kick-ass open-source codec that rivals the best of the proprietary world (AAC IMHO), finally release the Holy Version 1.0, and what kind of thanks do they get for their efforts? What they get is a bunch of wannabe "developers" (the kind of hangers-on that seem to infest EVERY popular open-source project I have ever seen) whining about file extensions or somesuch piddly crap.

@robUx4:
I'm pretty sure what they mean is that the files contain or are referenced by some kind of "metadata" that tells the OS useful information about what's in the file and what should be done with it when the user clicks on it. For example: you could have a bunch of .avi files, some with DivX+mp3 and some with Divx+AC3, and you could have some metadata in the filesystem that told the OS which ones to open up with which player. Windows, unfortunately, does not have this ability, although I think Mac OS X does. Microsoft is supposedly addressing this issue with Longhorn (Windows 2004?), and a lot more! Apparently the Longhorn filesystem is going to be an outright database with all the power and flexibility that implies.

BTW, we .mp4 lovers have the same issues with audio .mp4 we want to play in WinAmp or RealOne and video .mp4 we want to play in Quicktime. I've found that a simple right-click and "Open With" does the trick... sheesh!

[DeXT]

You just have to follow the numbers.

- 95% of OGG users around use Windows
- 95% of Windows users around use WinAMP for audio and WMP (or a different player) for video
- 95% of those users prefer using different extensions for video and audio

These are derived from user feedback and posts on this Forum. And yes, I think Doom9's Forums are a valid source of empirical data about the user base, just because this is one of the largest meeting points on the "DivX scene", or whatever it's called.

You can ignore these numbers, but then you are just lying to yourself.

Remember OGMs were initially called OGG, but people were so confused and there were so many user feedback about problems with WinAMP etc that they HAD to switch to another extension. You cannot blame them for just following user feedback.

Sure, this OGG Prak thing is cool. And people using OGG as an extension will LOVE it. But probably just a small portion of the user base will use it. And the vast majority of users will still prefer a different extension. This is the way the world is done, and we can't change it. So we have just to ADAPT to it.

[This doesn't mean you HAVE to adopt OGM. Just tolerate it. I can't understand why Vorbis people don't like what most users have just chosen; remember the user is always right, as Rob said.]

[robUx4]

Originally posted by DeXT
[This doesn't mean you HAVE to adopt OGM. Just tolerate it. I can't understand why Vorbis people don't like what most users have just chosen; remember the user is always right, as Rob said.]

Doom9 said that (maybe his name is Rob ;)

[Emmettfish]

DeXT says:

[Statistics Deleted]

"These are derived from user feedback and posts on this Forum. And yes, I think Doom9's Forums are a valid source of empirical data about the user base, just because this is one of the largest meeting points on the "DivX scene", or whatever it's called."

A rather large percentage of Windows users don't use their computers for anything but the occasional E-mail, and a rather large percentage of Windows users have no clue what a DivX (or even the 'DivX scene') is, so your empirical data is going to need some tweaking.

"Sure, this OGG Prak thing is cool. And people using OGG as an extension will LOVE it. But probably just a small portion of the user base will use it. And the vast majority of users will still prefer a different extension. This is the way the world is done, and we can't change it. So we have just to ADAPT to it."

I completely support any file extension you wish to use in order to adapt to your situation. Can I make this any more clear? Use .ogg, use .ogm, use .emmett_sucks. You can use anything you want. I can not and will not attempt to stop you. Do I have to have airplanes sky-write 'Do What Works For You' over your houses?

How much more time am I going to have to waste on this issue, telling people to do what they want to do? Is this a completely foreign concept?

If anyone comes up to you and says, 'Well, Xiph.org doesn't want you to use anything but .ogg,' tell them, "I talked to Emmett, their CEO, and he said that I can use whatever I want, so shut your pie-hole."

Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation

[MaTTeR]

I totally agree, this issue is wasting everyone's time.

Use what extension you want or use Prak. It's not difficult, so no need to keep harping on this subject. Let's move along people!

[canadian_fbi]

and i agree with your agreement. :) everyone is free to use what they like without fear of being berated or pelted with rotting fruit because of it. and the world is a better place.

[Neo Neko]

Ack! I blink and we bloom a monster! A weekend wasted at my job. ;)

Folks this is a very testy situation. As such I will try to be as fair and ballanced as I can. Both sides have been guilty of overreaction. But no one here is evil or a bad person. Lets keep objective here. In case anyone was not aware Xiphophorus is Mac/BSD country. :) Mac and UNIXs don't make sloppy judgements about files from their extension like Windows does. It is a fact and a difficincy of Windows. For the Xiph team there is no problem with a unified extension. Only when it comes to Windows is it becomming a problem. Enter OGG-Prak. You still have all the old options, only now there is a new choice. Ogg-prak will not reside in memory. It will run only when needed and only for a short time. It does not solve all the problems in Windows. But it is a start. It simply looks at the file headers and launches the desired program for the content much like Mac or UNIX would. You can still choose to use *.ogm. Xiph has not said stop now or else. They came to the decision that for official purposes a clear unified extension for what is after all the same thing would be best for them. No one looses here or is being repressed. Remember this is Xiphoporus's product and they are kind enough to be intimate and friendly with the format and the technology. And for free no less.

Keopi just use ogm and chill. It is still all good man. They have no ill will for you or Tobias or anyone else here. You are all free to use ogm as you like. Xiph has just decided that they will not tell people to do so. That is all this means.

Keopi this whole Ogg-Prak deal was my idea to begin with. Don't be upset. I pitched it and friend gave birth to the actuall proggie. And Xiph has signed the adoption papers. All views are equal here. And no one is to be silenced. We only want good things to come of this. Remember we have not reduced the choices, only expanded them. The more avenus open the better right? People will likely settle for one over the other. We will just have to see. I know we are all reasonable people here don't make me use Mr. Schlage on the thread here. ;)

[avih]

@Emmettfish:

first, thank you for your response here.

now, you should understand that there are 2 issues with this subject:

1. CURRENT usability within a windows environment, on which case you answered sufficiantly with (more or less) "Use any extension that u like, if it's working for you, enjoy". This should satisfy users about current usability

the other issue, on the other hand, which cause much more concern imho is

2. FUTURE usability/compatibility of the ogm extension (let's put aside the discussion whether or not the current muxing code is implemented correctly at all). since most ppl would like to have their clips playable some time in the future, some of them nay have concerns because you don't say "we WILL support the ogm extension in our future developments of the ogg container, at least from playback point of view" (as nonsense as it can be from a technical point of view). on top of that, they need to decide NOW which extension should they use to burn on the cd: ogg or ogm.

now these ppl are in an uncomfortable situation since, obviously, from usability point of view, the ogg/ogm separation is more advantageous than ogg only extension. on the other hand, all they HEAR is "do what you like" which doesn't tell them anything about your future intention regarding the ogm extension. it's an extremely tough decision to make [at least in the world of video burning ;)]

now, imo, even if the worst case scenario happens, and for some reason some time in the future from now it will be absolutely impossible to use ogm files for playback, ppl can STILL copy these file to the HD and rename the extension to ogg (and possibly burn it again) and everything's cool.

this scenario is very unlikely to happen though imho.

what i'm saying is, that without 'costing' you anything really, and without any kind of sacrifice on your behalf (and most probably you won't be confronted with this statement in the future), you could say:

"We are aware to the fact that some of the people use an ogm extension because under certain environments (i.e. windows), for these people, it simplifies things from the user point of view. Eventhough we officially recommend to use the ogg extension with regards to the Ogg container, we will try (but we can't promise), in our future development, not to break compatibility with the ogm extension from playback point of view, where feasable."

while you can't be FORCED to adopt the ogm extension, and you certainly don't promise this, this kind of statement on your behalf will let ppl know that you CARE about them, and that you are at least AWARE that some use the ogm extension for Ogg container. imo, a statement like "do what u like" MAY sounds like running away from responsibility, while a statement like "we know, we care, we will try" will give ppl the FEELING that u LISTEN to them and care for them.

And this feeling makes a LOT of difference.

cheers and best regards
avi

[Jon Ingram]

Do Windows users have some sort of innate need to be controlled?
How many times has Emmett said 'use whatever extension you want', and *still* you keep on replying, saying that it's more complicated.

It *isn't*.

This is a non-issue.
It's vapour.
There is no issue here.
Roll up, roll up, for the magic disappearing issue!

You want to use .monkey as your extension? Then use .monkey.
If all the tools you are currently using use .monkey, then use .monkey.
.monkey isn't an *evil* extension.
Using .monkey will *not* cost you your soul.

Now, which of you are the little-endians, and which are the big-endians? I think we can look to them as a prime example of what this discussion is degenerating into.

[Emmettfish]

Avih said:

"while you can't be FORCED to adopt the ogm extension, and you certainly don't promise this, this kind of statement on your behalf will let ppl know that you CARE about them, and that you are at least AWARE that some use the ogm extension for Ogg container. imo, a statement like "do what u like" sounds like running away from responsibility, while a sstatement like "we know, we will try" will give ppl the FEELING that u care."

I cared a lot more when people were talking about this issue like ladies and gentlemen, and not screaming like children. Children insist on constant affirmation, not adults. It's my job to facilitate the creation, production and maintenance of open standards. It is not my job to play nursemaid to a bunch of people that absolutely insist on me taking a hard-line position. If you want to be told what to do, go join the military, or find a good dominatrix.

I'm not dodging any issue here, I'm trying to do what's right. I'm not making any promises about any file extensions, because I don't want to break those promises later. I'm trying to be as responsible as possible in saying 'do what you want,' because I want people to have freedom of choice.

Think about it this way: If you encode everything with .ogm, and you post it online as .ogm, and your friends use .ogm, and their friends use .ogm, and your gym teacher uses .ogm, and your gym teacher's dog uses .ogm, what the hell do you need our approval for?

If you think that .ogm suits your purposes, use it. If you don't think it suits your purposes, or you think a different extension would be more suited to you, don't use it. I cannot and will not tell you what to do with your computer. It's your computer, it's up to you. If you want to be told what to do with your computer, look elsewhere.

What do you want from me? Do you want me to tell you that you're special and that you're a beautiful and unique creature? Perhaps I should come to your house, make you a nice cup of hot cocoa and read you bedtime stories about happy puppies and rainbows. Maybe I could sing you a song about daisies and peppermints?

I can't make everyone happy, folks. I'm Emmett Plant, not Mary Poppins.

Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.org Foundation

[Koepi]

Ok, now that really everybody has proved in this thread to be able to get that upset that he forgets about all manners (yeah, I did - but most of you as well), we should put this matter aside and draw the conclusions.

Xiph has Ogg Prak and will only support ogg and ogg-prak.

DXN wouldn't stop us from naming .divxs into .whatever. They simply can't. BUT they will never support it.

This is what the thing is about.

If they don't accept another extension to be official, it's just technically ogg, but for them it's "none of their concerns".

This is what I'm upset about.

Emmet, you told us you would _really_ try to make a point there for us, trying to make ogm more official.
But it _seems_ at least to me that you didn't. (This isn't meant as offense. This might as well be "you didn't succeed".)

Neo, I'm not angry or anything at you because you coded ogg-prak. I even appreciate it. Only thing went wrong there was that you could've told the public so noone uses *.ogm and thus produces unsupported ogg files.

I think this is the last post necessary in this thread. No need to get further upset. Let's all calm down. This issue will solve itself with the time that comes. It just has cost some people many uneccessary efforts.

Hopefully this will REALLY settle down now,

Regards,
Koepi