Ffmpeg for windows with ndi support Patch#
Ffmpeg for windows with ndi support code#

> what security issues were prevented by libav's wholesale removal of working code?įfmpeg has a lot of areas where the cold is old, barely maintained, and has many issues.

Ffmpeg for windows with ndi support Patch#

And yes, right now they’re still slower to patch some kinds of bugs than openssl, but once they patch them, they actually stay fixed, while each openssl patch opens a dozen new bugs. Look at libressl - they ripped out 90% of the functionality of openssl, cleaned up the API surfaces, etc. Clean code, maintainability, and so on are actually important.

Ffmpeg for windows with ndi support code#

FFmpeg is one of the buggiest and most broken collections of code on this planet.

It became more and more 'less' when ffmpeg gained new (well-designed) features, and libav refused to merge them just because they were not designed by libav. That’s nothing different from what I said, I just tried to phrase it more nicely. > There was longstanding animosity between the project lead and other developers, due to a variety of reasons, mainly his dictatorial leadership style. Yes, libav was slower in patching, but the goals with which it started were good in nature. It became more and more 'less' when ffmpeg gained new (well-designed) features, and libav refused to merge them just because they were not designed by libav.Īll you’re saying is repeating what I stated - libav removed unclean code and focused on cleaning it up, even if that meant losing a lot of functionality.Īt the same time, ffmpeg merged pretty much everything, even if that lead to worse code, or security issues. > Even though it was a situation where libavs codebase was, compared to ffmpeg, much cleaner, similar to openssl vs libressl. Moreover, ffmpeg had a significantly better security profile than libav due to actually patching bugs rather than waiting to do it right (which ffmpeg developers will argue was basically 'doing it differently than ffmpeg'). libav did remove a large amount of code that was working, some of which may have been insecure or not designed well, but a lot of which was actually necessary for people's workflows and not 'dead code' as they claimed. > And at first, ffmpeg focused only on features, regardless of security, while libav focused on security and clean code, even if that meant compromising on features. This contradicts your previous claim that 'everyone but the lead left the project'. > So the community and the projects both split, and both fought about being the real one. > everyone but the lead left the project and forked into libavĪ small set of contributors with technical control over certain infrastructure removed the lead's access. There was longstanding animosity between the project lead and other developers, due to a variety of reasons, mainly his dictatorial leadership style. > The project lead had a fight with all the other core contributors I will pick some of the most ridiculous points here to rebut, but a better summary could be found in literally any of the search results for 'ffmpeg libav'. I have no bone in this fight, but this is an egregiously terrible and biased summary.