Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of streaming media software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DigitalIceAge (talk | contribs) at 18:20, 13 April 2023 (WikiProject Computing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

more usefulness

there is only a scant amount of data on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UberStein (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


Alphabetize

This should be alphabetized. 209.150.54.42 04:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections/missing info

Need to update the information and cleanup a little... 209.150.54.42 04:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOWZA server if missing

FLV format is missing

more systems

need to add more systems and charts!

Flumotion

Also it seems flumotion isn't free —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.107.177 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The software is free (it can be downloaded for no cost and is open source) but you can pay a company to set everything up and manage it if you want. 124.148.48.20 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


P2PTV

Is convenient to diference between unicast, multicast and P2PTV capabilities. --Libero (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of "Media Player" column?

What is the purpose of the "Media Player" column in the "General" table? I believe that in its current form, this column is misleading. The servers stream videos using protocols such as RTMP and RTSP (details in the "Protocol support" table). Any player supporting a protocol served by the media server should be able to play streams from that media server. Currently, the table has a long list of players for Wowza (which supports RTMP and RTSP), and just says "any" player for Darwin (which does not support RTMP). This suggests that more players work with Darwin than with Wowza, which I believe to be incorrect. Could someone with more expertise assess this?

Meanwhile I will change "any" to "any with appropriate protocol support", and change the Wowza entry to read "any with appropriate protocol support, including..." --195.212.29.91 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be removed completely as obviously it's misleading. Instead of supporting this column, media player page needs to be extended with web players information.Yurriq (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete?

Ain't you guys missing a few services on this list? What about places such as Livestream, Ustream, or Watchtail [1]? Or would they belong on some other list? --79.193.62.12 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

I also have a streaming server that I want to add to this list. I actually have 2 of them (one is open source, one is commercial). Every time I add them, they are undone because "lack of references". IMHO, this is completely unfair. I also saw another edits which were undone for other 3rd party servers. Don't want to make strong accusations, but this list is intentionally maintained with certain (commercial) values, despite the maintainer's claims of "purely informative, non-commercial" content. How is wowza non commercial for example? They even advertise the prices in here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiretu (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not limited to commercial or non-commercial software. However, the General section says "Please see the individual systems' linked articles for further information." Which means that only software products that have their own article on Wikipedia should be listed here. The most common selection criteria for stand-alone lists ("List of..." or "Comparison of..." articles like this one) is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." If the product meets the notability criteria (if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), then the article should be written first, then it can be added to this list with an internal link. Furthermore, I can't see your addition to this article in your contributions. If you are using multiple accounts or IP addresses to add products to lists, it is sock puppetry, which is not allowed.—J. M. (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
J.M., my IP address has nothing to do with this. I was not trying to subvert/trick any IP detection systems that you might have in place. All I did is to repost a previously removed addition done by one of my colleagues (we did try to have an stand-alone article as well). I can assure you, my intent is not to trick wiki. We will not try to re-post our articles/additions to wiki until we are almost sure they will be accepted. Our intent is not page vandalism. We just have troubles understanding what "significant coverage" is and how is it quantified/evaluated. Looks to me that this is still an arbitrary/subjective process (of course, I could be totally wrong). IMO, the best description of a software can only come from its creator. He/she knows everything about that. Thank you for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.51.10 (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on the product homepage, the best description may come from the creator. On Wikipedia, writing about yourself or your own product is strongly discouraged. See the Conflict of interest guideline.
"Significant coverage" is explained in the Notability guideline. Sure, subjective judgment and common sense is still ultimately required in borderline cases, but then, when a person is keen on adding a product bordering on insignificance, it is a strong indication that they are motivated by something other than improving Wikipedia. If your product is notable enough, chances are that someone else will write an article about it here. In fact, when the product is notable, it means there is enough (impartial) information available for writing an article about it. When there is not enough information and the product creator "who knows everything about it" is required, it simply means the product is not notable enough. If it is not notable enough, it should not be covered in Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the perfect (wrong) example of an article which was accepted without a blink. There are 0 external references, except the ones from the creator. Please explain us, how are those "reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? We can give you another 10001 examples in other domains/fields of activity across all wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiretu (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, a bad article in Wikipedia does not mean that bad articles are acceptable here. It only means that it has not been noticed and/or fixed yet. No one can monitor everything all the time. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid excuse. Second, a lack of references in the article does not necessarily mean that no references could be found. I think Helix Universal Server is notable enough and references could be added quite easily, as it has been covered quite extensively in reliable sources.—J. M. (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_streaming_media_software&oldid=1149673527"