Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
user_Jamesday wrote:
We do need to recognise that these are the formats
people have. And
recognise that, however much we may like it, Windows 95 may not have
support for Ogg.
Windows 95 supports Ogg just fine. All the major players that people
could be using in Windows 95 support Ogg.
I wonder if, in an understandable effort to emphasise the importance of
free software, you have overplayed how easy it is easy to get Ogg
working in Windows. As I understand it for the usual players:
Windows Media Player : You can download a plugin from an unofficial site
Apple Quicktime: You can download a plugin from an unofficial site
Real Networks Real Player: Our article states they announced support
in 2002, but my version doesn't have it and I can't find any
confirmation that the next version has it (version 10)
Winamp (unfornuately from our view point this is not as popular as it
was): Out-of-the-box support
Given that no other major website forces you to play OGG, most users
would not have downloaded these plugins. They would have to download
them specifically for Wikipedia.
The question is: Is forcing them to do this a big deal? You appear to
say no it isn't. I would disagree and say yes it IS a big deal. Many,
many web users CAN NOT update software on their computer (virtually
anyone on a locally managed network: school, library, office, cybercafe
etc) because they do not have the rights to do so. Only home users would.
Note: we bend over backwards to support all major browsers (minimizing
JavaScript etc) because most people cannot change their browser. Yet
when we come to sound, we are changing tack.
Whether this consideration is sufficiently strong in order for us to
consider allowing other formats, I'm not sure. But it is worth bearing
in mind before going GNUng-ho into going ogg-only.
Pete