[Matroska-devel] Re: Adding matroska support to FFMPEG via libmatroska/libebml, in C++ ?

Steve Lhomme steve.lhomme at free.fr
Tue Oct 14 22:25:44 CEST 2003

ChristianHJW wrote:

> D Richard Felker III wrote:
>> Hint 1: Matroska has large overhead.

>>> opened to any codec, extensible as you wish, all based on an easy 
>>> principle (EBML). That's all that comes to my mind for now.
>> ROTFL! Perhaps you should learn about this stuff from a performance
>> software perspective rather than from a CS-professor perspective. EBML
>> is inefficient and totally unnecessary.

>>>> In this case, I merely stated that quoting an official promotion site
>>>> doesn't really prove the popularity of anything.
>>> So what would be decisive for you ? Popularity of a crap format ? Of 
>>> an unpopular format that is technically good ? Matroska has a (fast) 
>>> growing popularity and is technically good (I won't claim it's the 
>>> best, but it's among the best ones). What else do you need ?
>> It's technically bad. All it succeeds in doing is being better than
>> the horrible avi and ogm containers. Rich

It's incredible how far a man is ready to go to get ridiculous... We can 
prove what we say, and you can't. Apparently you know nothing about 
matroska since you can't read bloated specs. So please shut the fuck up. 
I'm sure that will leave time for everyone to do more creative things.

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list