The AMF SDK allows for "optimal" access to AMD GPUs for multimedia processing but this patch series questioned the need in an era of Vulkan Video APIs beginning to see adoption.
The newest AMD FFmpeg patch series for AMF is on adding hardware context "hwcontext_amf" support along with AMF-based H.264, HEVC, and AV1 decoders.
Dmitrii Ovchinnikov explained with the patch series: "Adds hwcontext_amf, which allows to use shared AMF context for the encoder, decoder and AMF-based filters, without copy to the host memory.
AMF context on Windows allows fully enable SAV - ability to utilize VCNs in dGPU and APU in a single session.
This is a lot of vendor-specific code for which an overlap with a standard API already exists, and I'd just prefer to know why this should be merged and maintained now, as Vulkan video adoption is finally starting."
So far the patch series hasn't been merged to upstream FFmpeg, so we'll see if it's ultimately accepted or if it's rejected in favor of encouraging more open / industry standard APIs in 2024.
The original article contains 538 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Personally I use ksnip. Pretty sure it doesn't do video though. It does do assorted image capture, OCR (if you have Tesseract installed), and supports uploading to imgur, FTP, and anything you can manage to do with a script.
There isn't really a perfect replacement for ShareX that I know of.
I think most of the other answers are good. For enterprise software I think, non community contributed, security updates behind a paywall are reasonable too. I know all updates can be behind a paywall and still be FOSS but it really hurts the public good / community aspects that make FOSS great to me.
From a policy stand point I think stakeholders should sue when a major security breach tanks gets identities stolen, the stock or worse and CTO failed to buy down any risk with SLAs on key software.
I know all updates can be behind a paywall and still be FOSS but it really hurts the public good / community aspects that make FOSS great to me.
If companies abuse public good, how should the public protect itself and still stay great?
From a policy stand point I think stakeholders should sue when a major security breach tanks gets identities stolen, the stock or worse and CTO failed to buy down any risk with SLAs on key software.
The later is true for all software, but a lot of the "open source is unsustained"talks comes from the trillions of dollars and critical infrastructure built on it, but with little to no funding going back to actually paying for development or any contract in place saying that bugs will be fixed at all.
I think the "abuse" part is less of an issue outside if this. Like I don't mind that business benifit more than they put into public infrastructure, in fact I hope they do, but its a problem in which people that benifit the most aren't paying their proportional amount of the bill or worse no one is and we poise ourselves to lose it.
its a problem in which people that benifit the most aren’t paying their proportional amount of the bill or worse no one is and we poise ourselves to lose it
Exactly. A lot of this public infra is written in OSI respecting opensource, yet it is being taken advantage of with little to no kickback. Most people writing opensource cannot live on it and are never compensated for their work. Yet, when the proposition is made to introduce the equivalent of a tax within/for opensource projects, there's an outcry about it not respecting the OSI definition of opensource.
So, my question is, what's the realistic alternative? Because right now OSIsts are defending the equivalent of roads being built by people in their offtime and are vehemently against it being written that they should get compensated if the road is used for commercial purposes.
I mean we build projects that benifit ourselves and don't do the boring stuff we don't want to for free. If we are affected by organizations responsible to us (we are paying customers, investors part owners, voters, etc) that didn't do due dillegece to maintain their IT systems by getting meaningful SLAs or hiring proven capable devs to support upstream, they we sue them, demand refunds, vote out execs, etc, etc.
I don't think the free loading concept is very helpful way to frame though. If a bunch of people can make things or run services for next to no cost, that's great too. Not everything is critical, not every public project needs funding, just because we put in work to something does it mean we need to be paid for it. Somethings only became critical because a bunch of people, just for fun, ran stuff on it and choose it just because it was free.
Open Source
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 47 day(s) ago).