Nut Container: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (NutIssues moved to Nut issues) |
m (cleanup) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Comparison with Ogg == | == Comparison with Ogg == | ||
Monty writes: "NUT is very similar to Ogg (at | Monty writes: "NUT is very similar to [[Ogg]] (at least when compared to the other contemporary systems). It draws the abstraction lines in different places but has roughly the same functionality and hits the same practical limitations when considered in a system more complex than a desktop video player. | ||
least when compared to the other contemporary systems). It draws the | |||
abstraction lines in different places but has roughly the same | |||
functionality and hits the same practical limitations when considered | |||
in a system more complex than a desktop video player. | |||
"Nor can we take | "Nor can we take lightly the prospect of abandoning a hundred million installed copies of Ogg (including those in hardware) for no distinct practical benefit." | ||
lightly the prospect of abandoning a hundred million installed copies | |||
of Ogg (including those in hardware) for no distinct practical | |||
benefit." | |||
Revision as of 14:01, 6 July 2008
This page collects opinions about the NUT container format.
Comparison with Ogg
Monty writes: "NUT is very similar to Ogg (at least when compared to the other contemporary systems). It draws the abstraction lines in different places but has roughly the same functionality and hits the same practical limitations when considered in a system more complex than a desktop video player.
"Nor can we take lightly the prospect of abandoning a hundred million installed copies of Ogg (including those in hardware) for no distinct practical benefit."