|
You are obviously just here to get piste.
Obvious, but worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartender says, "Sorry, I can't serve you, and by the way, the only black diamond here is on the jukebox."
|
|
|
|
|
That's okay, we're just skiing throoooooooooooooooooooooooooough!
|
|
|
|
|
Well today is the last full Friday of the year for me as next week is a half, then I have the 27th off.
For the week of the 23rd I only have to work on the 26th, and then I have two days off the week of the 30th.
This post is mainly because I do not have very much on my plate today and am waiting to go to lunch.
|
|
|
|
|
Yay
It's my last full Friday as well as next Friday is a half day here too – it's Christmas lunch and the afternoon is free after that. And my company never works Christmas-New Year.
One week to go, just one week ...
|
|
|
|
|
We shut down at lunchtime next Friday and return on the 2nd
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Worked at a auto part manufacturer that shut down between Christmas and New Years but did maintenance so IT may or may not have to go in.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted this article a 2 originally as i did not think the implementation was well done: RS Focus Component[^]. I also provided detailed reasons for this.
After further investigation I noticed that the project relied on a closed source dll, which is against the CodeProject Contributors Agreement[^] to post closed-source libraries:
Note: As a consequence of the frequent virus infections across the internet, CodeProject will no longer accept binary submissions that do not contain full source code, unless the submission is from a recognised company or institution. Shareware or time-limited submissions will not be accepted.
Also after downgrading my vote to one and explaining this, Rameez Raja then proceeded to down vote other articles of mine with comments such as "..."
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
Some people think of ratings as a game that you are trying to maximise your score in, so they get very offended when you downvote them. Just ignore or use 'report abuse' on abusive retaliatory downvotes on your own articles.
He'll find that annoying you enough to get you to post in the Lounge attracts a few more downvoters though. I don't understand how that article could be rated over 4.5 (as it was before I voted), even not counting the issue you raise here it is poorly written and shallow in content. It must be his mates voting, perhaps ratings on articles shouldn't show until they have (say) 20 ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean by the game, but I think that this retaliation behaviour goes against what CodeProject stands for, people attacking others for down voting just discourages down voting in the first place!
I think people should vote how they want to vote (down or up), as long as the person provides reasoning, and gives an open chance of discussion, and, also, the opportunity to change their vote based on the authors response (either reasoning or changing the article).
Unfortunately, not all think this way.
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
I had no idea the article relied on a closed-source component. I'm going to investigate further and change my vote if necessary.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
i00 wrote: I think that this retaliation behaviour goes against what CodeProject stands for
While I can certainly understand your frustration, it seems as though this thread is a bit of retaliation.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ... it does get to me, but only because the author has not
provid[ed] reasoning, and gives an open chance of discussion, and, also, the opportunity to change their vote based on the authors response (either reasoning or changing the article).
I posted several informative posts on his article, and provided code examples of how the project could have been improved.
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry you are having this problem !
I do think the place to report, and discuss, this kind of problem is the "Spam and Abuse Watch Forum" [^].
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing this out to me, I don't use the forums bit much (basically use it to comment on articles).
I did look for something like this, but only under the drop-down menus @ the top... didn't realise the item on the left menu, I think that it should also be under the "Help" menu.
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
The article is now deleted. Thanks to my Gold Author Rep he lost a lot of his *oh-so-precious* points.
Something has backfired, I guess.
Veni, vidi, caecus
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the user has been vanished... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snoda, appropriate is. 
|
|
|
|
|
I can't wait until it snows!
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Just don't stand outside or it could be a picture of you!
|
|
|
|
|
Most of us work a regular job to pay the bills but typically have a few side projects going on as well. Usually, they're fun. Rarely, if ever, do they translate into serious, buy-a-beach-house-and-a-new-Corvette money.
As you know, the past couple of years I've started getting into video production. There are three major players for software. Apple, with Final Cut Pro (FCP), Avid, with Media Composer (MC) and Adobe, with Premiere Pro (PP), not to mention After Effects, etc. All are pro level products. None are inexpensive. But these are your choices.
With FCP X, Apple alienated its pro user base by revamping the product to be more consumer oriented. There was a major uproar over this. Adobe recently ended perpetual licensing and switched to pure subscription, with an unusual twist. Unlike MSDN, if you stop paying at the end of the year, you can no longer use the software. You have to pay them monthly for the rest of your life, or you lose your software.
Avid's MC is twice the price of PP (and I've heard even buggier, which stretches the imagination given how unstable PP is). They're the only company that hasn't actively screwed their customer base, but Avid is a company who's not doing so well. I would be nervous (and have a big dent in my bank account) if I converted to them.
If you want to produce professional grade video for movies, TV, or even the web, these are your choices. All of them are bad. I got screwed by Adobe to the point that I might have even considered buying a Mac but for the FCP X debacle. Avid isn't terribly appealing, but if I want to move into the future (and own my software license), they're all that's left.
Hence my question. It's very rare that a window opens up in the software world where there's an actual business opportunity with a proven ability to make money that isn't locked up by major players. At the moment, there's a huge opportunity for software to serve the pro video market, and nobody's filling it. We're talking buy-a-dozen-beach-houses-and-a-herd-of-new-Corvettes money here.
This isn't an easy project. To support all the audio and video formats, offer support for existing third party plugins, implement both video editing and motion graphics (AE) programs, etc. is a lot of work. There's also the reality that upon release, many will pirate your work instead of paying you for it. However, Apple, Adobe and Avid have made a ton of money even with the cracked versions floating around.
This isn't a program you could write overnight, but there's a huge market out there. Furthermore, if you build something good, we'll not only happily give you our money and tell our friends about you, we'll likely erect a statue in your honor while we're doing it. This market desperately needs a new solution at this price point.
Could I write this myself? Absolutely. However, I have two new books on the street, speaking gigs to promote, a new show band I'm putting together and a couple of other longstanding weekly commitments. I simply don't have the bandwidth.
And so, as a video guy who has access to an extremely powerful collection of pro software developers, I ask - is anyone interested in going after this pile of money, and helping the video guys out in the process?
|
|
|
|
|
Am I (like any other developer) interested in making a pile of money? Hell yes.
Is what you are talking about, being able to compete with the likes of Adobe or pro-grade video software, within the reach of the lone developer. I highly doubt it.
So where does that leave somebody wanting to take on this venture? Start a company, hire developers, and get coding. I'm guessing the first release would be 2 years off, and in this time the company is burning cash without income. They have to buy standards, they have to buy codec licenses, they have to pay overhead, etc. The only chance here is an angel investor or somebody with deep pockets and a lot of patience. Video editing software isn't like a new CRM, its a lot more complicated.
Then, even after 2 years of hard development, you release a "no-name" product to the world. You're price point will have to be low enough to capture interest while at the same time not pricing so low that you're seen as "cheap". This puts your ROI years off while still having to start immediately on Version 2.
I just don't see this kind of thing making anybody piles of money for somebody who doesn't have a name behind it...
|
|
|
|
|
I spent 8 months writing a media projection app for a company in MediaCityUK
Doing video rendering well (with associated transforms, filtering, etc) is **hard**.
So that's probably the reason why there are so few players, and their products are expensive and slightly buggy.
Or, maybe I'm just not that good. :p
|
|
|
|
|
I would be up for it but I can't work with anyone in a Show Band, sorry.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
