Re:BPG Image format
by dahart on Sunday July 22, 2018 @02:49PM
(#17588167)
> A meritocracy is something I want to live in.
Then why not celebrate BPG? It appears to stand on its own as superior to older formats. Or celebrate Fabrice? I don’t know him, but his merit appears to be earned, I think.
Why do you think Fabrice bothers posting stuff when Google & Facebook & Microsoft exist? He could easily give up, fighting image & web standards is an impossible task for most people.
> my friend just gave up on open sourcing their amazing project
That’s too bad, but it’s extremely common because building an audience and solving real world problems takes a lot of work, work that’s not programming. Many amazing OSS projects fail for lack of adoption because they’re programming things that, as awesome as they may be, have no demonstrated need nor enough engagement or support to keep them going.
> Credentialism. Reputation. Audience. These are harmful to a meritocracy.
Credentialism I could agree with, but what’s wrong with reputation or audience? What is merit exactly, and how does it exist without reputation or audience?
Think carefully & be honest — how many software appps or projects do you invest your own time in that have no reputation or audience? There are people, early adopters, who try unknown things a lot. Most people aren’t early adopters and don’t want to spend their time waiting for bug fixes and improvements until the software they hope will work actually works. I’d say that not only is this natural, it’s necessary in a meritocracy.
Then why not celebrate BPG? It appears to stand on its own as superior to older formats. Or celebrate Fabrice? I don’t know him, but his merit appears to be earned, I think.
Why do you think Fabrice bothers posting stuff when Google & Facebook & Microsoft exist? He could easily give up, fighting image & web standards is an impossible task for most people.
> my friend just gave up on open sourcing their amazing project
That’s too bad, but it’s extremely common because building an audience and solving real world problems takes a lot of work, work that’s not programming. Many amazing OSS projects fail for lack of adoption because they’re programming things that, as awesome as they may be, have no demonstrated need nor enough engagement or support to keep them going.
> Credentialism. Reputation. Audience. These are harmful to a meritocracy.
Credentialism I could agree with, but what’s wrong with reputation or audience? What is merit exactly, and how does it exist without reputation or audience?
Think carefully & be honest — how many software appps or projects do you invest your own time in that have no reputation or audience? There are people, early adopters, who try unknown things a lot. Most people aren’t early adopters and don’t want to spend their time waiting for bug fixes and improvements until the software they hope will work actually works. I’d say that not only is this natural, it’s necessary in a meritocracy.