Perhaps it's just me...

I've been becoming more aware that many of the fomats (mp3, mpeg, gif) I've taken for granted in the win/dos world are actually proprietary formats with open source equivalents.

Many people seem keen to keep these formats on their system - making 100% open source infeasable.

However - wouldn't it be better to shift to an open source format?

I remember a discussion somewhere in which someone was complaining that an extra download et al was required to be able to save pics to gif format. I remember someone suggesting that PNG may be a better alternative. (Though I seem to be able to make GIFs with the GIMP - this is not the issue here.)

It occurs to me that the only real issue comes from compatability with other product - i.e. will iPods play ogg/vorbis format audio asw ell as mp3? (then there's the bit where you tend to download or otherwise receive audio as mp3, say from windows users.)

In the case of mp3 - my understanding is that it is a fast fourier transform - it seems it should be possible to convert mp3 to ogg (say, inverse transform to wav, then oggenc to ogg) I havn't been able to find a tool for this so far ... but they must exist.

Is there a similar equivalent process for mpeg video?

The main advantage of shifting like this would be to avoid the brewing copywrite storm. Howveer there may be other issues I havn't mentinoed here. (Well, almost certainly...)

So - what other proprietary -> open formats are there out there? Are there any proprietary formats which simply cannot be avoided?

Not sure what you're trying to say here. As far as sound files being innovated, you may be a bit late-- the .ogg format has been discovered though I do see you mentioning it. PNG is good to use as an image format.

Now, are you proposing that someone come up with a moving picture file (a la mpg, wma etc) that is completely open-source? That would be nice especially if it was capable of playing DVD formats. Still, I think that the industry that creates the Movie DVDs will always be able to encrypt them whenever they like (which is their right -- if we don't like it, then we can create our own movies and compete against them)

Audio:
I see there is community pressure to get iPod to support ogg format. Anyone know where that's going? With hp "liking" OS these days, perhaps we'll see dedicated ogg players? (I can play ogg on my PPC - but I still see people clamering to install mp3 support like they'd be lost without it.)

By "discovered" ... are people swapping audio in ogg format like used to be madness with mp3? Would it be reasonable, when someone complains of the lack of mp3 support "out of the box" in linux distros, to direct them to ogg? Or should they still be attached to their mp3 files.

I note that it is fairly simple to convert mp3 to ogg - via mp123 and oggenc - which keeps everything. There's even a perl script for non-programmers to use (mp32ogg.pl look it up) however, both formats are lossy so quality will be down.

Is there an OS alternative to wav or is wav already OS (I inderstand it to be ms property?)

Image:
I suppose it is the same for images. I am using jpeg for most stuff and png for display graphics. PNG seems a bit faster to load than GIF - but that could just be me

video:
An OS video equivalent for mpeg would be good wouldn't it. I don't know of any such projects. However, I don't think anyone is threatening anyone over mpeg use in software (could be wrong here). Just dosn't seem to be as contentious as mp3.

I can imagine MS getting stroppy over avi or other ms formats - but they haven't over wav ... but it struck me that the early ms formats may not be inforceable in terms of copywrite law: they're too generic. The newer ones may be more inforceable - perhaps that is why they were introduced?

I don't think the point would be to make ripping DVD's easier. Why should movie makers/distributers use a format which dosn't protect what they perceive as their rights? Anyway, I'm quite happy to pay for a quality product.

(I think dvd's use their own format anyway, not mpeg - I suspect you are perhaps confusing a player with a format.)

While there seem to be many alternatives to mpeg - it would seem none are OS.

paradigms:
Watching the installs of FC4 - I am struck by how many people rush to install support for their favorite proprietary formats. Similarily I find myself feilding questions about the inability to use a particular app et al. And so I keep thinking that too many users have perhaps got stuck in a box - in lInux, you just do it differently.

this thread:
Confusion will probably abound - this thread does not posen a question, but suggests a discussion. To pros and cons of shifting the way we do things into an equivalent OS method. Specifically, focussing on media/file formats.

Perhaps because the "teeny boppers" who have 300 gigs of mp3's on their drive don't even know the different between "free software" and "open source software", not to mention the fact what "Linux" is or who "Linus Torvalds" is?

Or perhaps it's because companies prefer proprietary formats -- that way they can cause trouble?

Perhaps it's a combination of users who don't care, and companies who prefer closed source solutions?

Only us Linux users care about OSS/FOSS software, and compared to the world population we're quite small.

There is no reason to not use mpeg formats, including mp3 and DivX. While these formats aren't completely free, there are good open source implementations of them that (AFAIK) do not contain any patented algorithms or other such problems. Gif used to be different, because there was a patent that required developers to pay money if they were using code that produces compressed gif files in their programs. The patent has now expired, but png format has other benefits over gif, so it is still the preferred image format in OSS.

I prefer to have my files in standard formats (mp3 for music, DivX for movies, pdf or html for e-books), because

• Most files are already in these formats, so I don't need to convert them.
• They work in different operating systems, often with the tools that come with the OS.
• Because they are so common, support for them will be available for a long time in the future.
• Using other formats means installing additional software, which needs disk space and causes extra maintenance work.

Formats with insufficient open source support, such as most of those used by Microsoft, should of course be avoided.

DVD's use mpeg-2, and when people talk about mpeg they usually mean this format. When you mentioned mpeg earlier in this thread, you probably meant DivX, which is (a variant of?) mpeg-4.

Not to get a flame going (I think civil debate is best) but why would this apply and say not a file format like the Java sound file, '.au'? Not that I disagree but I would like to hear a good explanantion. Hopefully you don't suggest that just because it's Microsoft then it's evil.

I tend to agree with these because a new file format is not needed if a similar one exists. The exception would be if for example some new unforeseen application comes on the horizon OR if the new file format is a dramatic improvement on an older similar one (for example... someone comes up with .oggX and it has better compression while retaining equal or better sound quality).

hell yes. remember .wps files? even office needs a damn converter to read those.

Proprietry formats are only kept closed if the owners think they can leverage some revenue out of doing it that way. Usually this means that a dominant player in a market forces everyone to a certain format 'by default'.

All proprietry formats fade in the end the only question is whether they are replaced by more closed formats or new open ones. I surmise that they will only be open if customers insist on it. By way of example, if PC world sold computers on the basis of $xx for the hardware and the a $yy surcharge for the OS with a choice of XP vs distro vs whatever so tha the cost of access to the closed format was explicit...how much of an effect do you think that would have on those formats?

Same thing happened in the CCTV worls a few years ago when companies stopped buying complete systems and started specifying components....manufacturers that weren't interoperable died.

By this, are you saying all proprietary formats are bad?

This subject comes up every once in a while .... what needs to be understood is the difference between open source and open standards, and the difference between standards and implementations.

MP3, for example, is an open standard specification. Although parts of the technology standard are protected by patent, the specification is open which allows for excellent open-source implementations like Lame or MAD. MP3 is not proprietary. MP3 is patented technology, but projects like lame and MAD are open-source implementations.

The xiph/vorbis people are usually on the forefront of patent-free media technology. They have a couple of video coding projects too (theora and tarkin, both are google-able) but as it turns out every useful video coding technology is protected by patent. Also of note is the open standard / open source media container format matroska.

Also it's a rather bad idea to transcode "proprietary" formats to open source formats solely for the sake of having a free patent. The loss in quality introduced in transcoding is just not worth it.

The most common file formats that cause trouble for me are wmv, xls, doc, and lit - all Microsoft formats. Wmv is especially bad because there is no support at all for x86_64. I don't have any experience about .au files.

I'd agree with the list of troublesome formats there ... I have to keep .doc support because (a) it is common and (b) I keep getting job descriptions sent in that format as an e-mail attachment. (Sometimes, tho, just a statement saying I got the job and when to show up... like it couldn't go in the e-mail. And, while I'm venting, these things arrive as an attachment to an e-mail that says just: "open the attachment"! Some people just don't know any better.) <pant pant>

mp3 controversy mostly seems to revolve arount the uses rather than the format.

But lets not turn this discussion into a MS=bad winge-fest or anything similar.

Perhaps we can get some folks comparative format ideas - what I have in mind here is maybe a categorised list with your idea of the best, nearest competitor and worst seen. All with reasons. Compare the best and nearest competitor.

i.e. For me in the last few weeks ...
<category>
<best><competitor><worst encountered>
music
ogg mp3 wma

ogg is there - I seldom see another unless it is wav.
mp3 requires I spend some time configuring support and I dont actually need to use it.
wma - hated since wmp7 insisted on sending it to my iPaq, and truncated all the songs! Cannot (at the mo) convert any back to a format I can use.

(note: have recently installed gmplayer which will play anything(!) though it dosn't have visualisations. Totem plays everything I've got but is crappy with mpeg (this is probably layer 4 ... I'll have to test this.)

video
mpg4 avi *
availablity is the main issue here again.
* there is one format I avoid like the plague but I keep forgetting what it's called. I think it's mostly vanished nowadays.

and so on ...

On the second thrust of the original post ... (reasons for sticking with pre-existing ideas about formats) I think availability seems to be big issue. Folk who have many existing mp3 files will need mp3 support. Similarily, if you exchange music a great deal, or people otherwise keep sending you the stuff, it is most likely to be mp3 format.

So this format thing is not usually about ignorance?