Re: visualization of CVS commits

[Geoffrey Teale]

On Jun 25, 2008, at 7:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

> Geoffrey Teale <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > > Richard M Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > >   I also find the demo very cool, and I think releasing Emacs 23
> > > >   accompanied with such a video would have a very positive effect.
> > > >
> > > > The use of Flash is very bad for free software.  If we release
> > > > a video, we should release it _only_ in Ogg Theora.
> > >
> > > I am not sure, but isn't the version of Flash supported by the Gnash
> > > player reasonably documented?
> >
> > To draw an analogy: OpenOffice.org exists therefore it is OK to
> > distribute emacs documents in MS Word format.
>
> The analogy falls down exactly at the point of my question, because MS
> Word format is not documented at all reasonably.  It also falls down
> otherwise since Emacs has a builtin info reader, but no builtin Ogg
> Theora reader.

Well, you say a 'version' of flash is documented.   Now I will freely  
admit my argument is a little trite, but what I mean to say is that  
Emacs should not be seen to promote the use of a format that isn't  
entirely free.    My, admittedly poor, analogy was trying to show that  
the question of whether or not a tool is available to view the  
material which is free (how ever it came about, through documentation  
or otherwise) is not a complete solution if the format itself is not  
completely free, in it's most current, complete version.    If you  
send someone the message that flash is OK, how are they to distinguish  
between documented version 8 that *might*, if you're really lucky,  
work in Gnash and version 9 which will not?

> > Some people may agree with that statement, I for one do not.
>
> So you make up a strawman which has absolutely no usable connection  
> with
> my question or Richard's statement and then sneer at it.

I am sorry.  I really did not mean to sneer - I simply feel strongly  
about flash and felt compelled to support an argument against that  
format.

> That's all very nice, but I am still interested about the original
> question.

Going back to the beginning - I think making such a video available  
would certainly be quite cool and is the sort of material that could  
easily get pushed around "viraly" on sites like reddit.   I see no  
downside to that idea.

> One problem that I see with Ogg Theora that it is intended, as far  
> as I
> know, for real-life movies.  Just like JPEGS are rather unsuitable for
> screen shots when compared to well-made PNGs (except when a large  
> amount
> of screen is covered by a photograph) because of a lousy tradeoff
> between artifacts and compression ratio (PNGs tend to be quite smaller
> and sharper), I'd expect Ogg Theora to be similarly encumbered for
> screen animations.

I see the point, but I'd contend that the freedom issues are more  
important (to me at least).   There must be some suitable, free  
software, animation tools out there.


> Feel free to point out when I am mistaken.  But please try addressing
> what I have been saying instead of something else.

Sorry, I simply felt strongly about it, that is all.
Regards,
--
Geoffrey Teale
Software and Technology Consultant, München
address@hidden