[Wikipedia-l] Video uploaded...

[Andre Engels]

> > In the name of freedom, we
> > are enforcing a non-standard format,
> 
> On the contrary, we are enforcing STANDARD formats, and more, OPEN STANDARD
> formats. Don't confuse "standard" with "installed on most proprietary
> overmarketed systems"; availability does not make it standard. It is right
> to note, that the standard formats are not yet as widespread, but do not
> mix these.

I am not here to discuss semantics, and I readily admit to using a
suboptimal term when saying "standard".

> I strongly disagree that these formats are, as you put it, for tech-savy
> open-source-loving nerds. Codec installation is not a hard task even for a
> windoze lemming, and downloading and running a player isn't really a tough
> job either. My grandma probably would be able to do it if she were still
> around, and she wasn't a tech-savvy nerd either.

Probably she could, probably I could too. Still, they need to do it.
When I go around the web, there's things to be downloaded here and
there. If I really want what is offered, I do so. Downloading and
installing something is not a lot of work. But getting a few seconds
of film is also not a large reward.

> Right now it requires EFFORT from the clueless end users. Installing windows
> requires efforts from them, too. We have the possibility to make them use
> their efforts for something useful, even if they are not aware of it, since
> they probably wouldn't understand at all what it's all about. If they want
> to use Wikipedia, they will familiarise themselves with the free tools.
> Educate themselves. Became smarter. More open. In the end, free.

Yippee! Now I can watch this movie from Wikipedia and I have this
*free* program on my computer to do so! I am glad that I'm not using
that other free program that I use to watch all those other sites,
because now I know that those who wrote that program either could
forbid others to do so, or could be forbidden by others to do so. What
a service!

I *hate* it when people tell me what to do and how to think.

> > My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a
> > sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others
> > who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too
> > strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are
> > any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to
> > play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at
> > the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their
> > format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and
> > writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
> 
> What do you expect, Windoze IS braindead, after all. But others mentioned
> .ogm as a simple workaround (and widespread, if not standard, solution).
> 
> But the other points you made are perfectly clear: if there is free software
> to create and play these formats, it "should bother us" if people don't use
> them. That's what it's all about: vorbis and theora are open, free and
> available, they match your definition, so we bother to make them used. To me
> it sounds fair.

Yes, they match the definition. But there are other formats that match
the definition just as well, but that you want to forbid because you
prefer your free formats to formats that are free only in practice but
not in theory and want to force your opinion upon me and others.

> My point 3 paragraphs ago was exactly about that "actual advantage" and
> "disservice" you mention: it is a service, and it have actual and very real
> advantage. You may not see it since you may happen to be one of those who,
> as I mentioned, doesn't understand or see the service others want to do for
> you (or, actually, force down your throat :)). But it's for your [or avid
> clueless windows users'] own good.

Farewell.

Andre Engels