this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
32 points (97.1% liked)
Open Source
31713 readers
97 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Only downside is that they do not want to add features, simple stuff like replacing the audio. But otherwise yes, go to solution
They have their scope. It's a video transcoder. Programs are better suited to doing their job well rather than stretching themselves thin with loads of features.
Then why can we apply video filters etc. if it is only for transcoding? That is a really basic thing. Like no audio or pass through. You can also add subtitles. Why not audio?
I'm not a developer. Just explaining why projects keep within their scope and don't bloat their software with features, which in turn take more effort to maintain.
I know, all good, that is just such an odd choice.
There are muxing apps that can do that.