From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:10:07 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Multimedia on Plan 9
In-reply-to: <6e35c0620706211553y47d488c6k6ed39621808264dd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Message-id: <1182471007.25089.263.camel@work.sfbay.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <467AC14B.1070705@kix.in>
	<9909f0f220e00d6b36b3262c0eb08775@terzarima.net>
	<6e35c0620706211553y47d488c6k6ed39621808264dd@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 849e098a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:53 -0700, Jack Johnson wrote:
> Though not quite the Plan 9 way, do you suspect it would be easier to
> start over from scratch, maybe using Limbo/Inferno, rather than
> dragging a bunch of code that's probably C++ anyway over to Plan 9?

  One of the reasons I would like to fully port ffmpeg to plan 9 is
because it is a nice C code base. Besides it fits very well the
overall 9P model (think of codecs as the way for endpoints to
communicate efficiently).

> In some ways it's the HTML problem, where the flavor of the month
> target moves faster than the motivation of the coders.  How long
> before OGG and Flash are on the request list?

  There's nothing wrong with OGG and Flash. In fact, one of the coolest
features of FFmpeg is that we try to implement most of the codecs
and formats as clean room implementations, not because we are ignorant
bastards but because we can usually do a waaay better job than the
bloated implementations which are out there.

Thanks,
Roman.