I'm looking at doing some MPEG-TS program specific information parsing. I understand wikipedia has some details regarding the syntax structure, but it's just not enough for my usage case, however, it seems like the specifications/standards are not freely available.
I've tried searching online for a more descriptive source, but nothing. I've had a look at ITU and ISO but they both want money for the specifications/standards.
I'm getting very close to concluding that there is not free version, but I'm wondering why ? and also if anybody has any good alternatives ?
The reason why is this is how ISO funds itself. ISO is a huge organisation with tons of members, and tons of meeting and it needs money to operate.
Your next question is probably “why don’t they do X instead”. I agree, the current method is stupid, but this is how they do it, and I doubt it will ever change.
The March 2017 issue is freely available. It has enough information (believe me) to let you write a MPEG-TS parser. If you want the latest release which documents the latest extensions to the standard (probably concerning 8K formats and so, but I haven't checked), you will have to pay.
If you're looking for program-specific information and can't find it in the ITU document, have a look at the DVB Service Information specification, assuming that your transport stream comes from a DVB network.
Related
For a some-what small (at least hopefully) project, I am hoping to gain access to the current audio being played through the "main line" (i.e. what is heard through the speakers.) Specifically, I'd like to create a visual equalizer of the audio currently being played. I do not wish to capture or "tamper" with the audio in any way, just run a little analysis on it. That being said, I'd imagine access to such information is not handed out nicely in a high-level API.
I noticed a similar question which is concerned with looking at system sound. The accepted answer points to looking into Soundflower's source code. I am not completely adverse to doing this but I'd like to ensure there isn't a simpler way before I got into it (especially because I have no real audio programming experience, especially at the system level.)
Any input is very much appreciated,
--Sam
There is no simple way to do this on OS X. You really have to do this from a kext, unfortunately.
I'm sitting here writing a function that I'm positive has been written before, somewhere on earth. It's just too common to have not been attempted, and I'm wondering why I can't just go to a website and search for a function that I can then copy and paste into my project in 2 seconds, instead of wasting my day reinventing the wheel.
Sure there are certain libraries you can use, but where do you find these libraries and when they are absent, is there a site like I'm describing?
Possibly a wiki of some type that contains free code that anybody can edit and improve?
Edit: I can code things fine, I just don't know HOW to do them. So for example, right now, I'm trying to localize a robot/car/point in space. I KNOW there is a way to do it, just based off of range and distance. Triangulation and Trilateration. How to code that is a different story. A site that could have psuedo code, step by step how to do that would be ridiculously helpful. It would also ensure the optimal solution since everybody can edit it. I'm also writing in Matlab, which I hate because it's quirky, adding to my desire for creating a website like I describe.
StackOverflow.com. No, I'm not joking.
At its best, people come here saying "hasn't some library done X already", and very often the Collective Wisdom answers "yes". But the biggest obstacle is lack of a description language: even here, a big problem for many posters is describing the problem clearly enough for others to recognize it as something they've seen before.
And if people can't understand what you're trying to do, no search engine will.
Firstly, two caveats:
Copy and pasting code you don't understand is a bad idea. Make sure you understand exactly what the code does before you use it.
Make sure you respect the license of the code you are copying. This is important!
Those caveats aside, it's often language dependent. Languages with an open development ethos (not just an open source implementation, think Python as compared to Java) tend to have official archives of open source libraries. For example:
Perl (which probably started this trend) has CPAN
Python has PyPI and Python Cookbook
PHP has PEAR
C++ has boost
Ruby has gems
R has CRAN.
Haskell has Hoogle and Hackage
Furthermore, don't forget to look in your languages standard library. Some modern languages have massive standard libraries, which have often contained the functionality I am looking for:
Java has its API documentation
C# and VB.NET have the massive MSDN
Non-openly developed languages often have non-official community archives. For example:
C# tends to have a lot of code at CodePlex and CodeProject
MATLAB has the Matlab Central File Exchange
A third category of sites are language agnostic. They are often best search through POG (plain old-fashioned Google). For example:
Stack Overflow
SourceForge
The confusingly language agnostic Java2s
Planet source code
Github
Finally, a fourth category of sites that I find increasingly useful are source-code search engines:
Google Codesearch
Koders
You may also be able to find useful source code, or at least get help writing something, through various pastebins.
Pastebin is language-agnostic
HPaste is mostly Haskell, but has a little in other languages.
Often, at the end of the day it is easiest just to google it, though.
There is a wiki that contains free code that anybody can edit and improve:
Rosetta Code.
As a means of an overview there is the "Solutions by Programming Task" page.
From the former page:
"Rosetta Code is a programming chrestomathy site. The
idea is to present solutions to the same task in as
many different languages as possible, to demonstrate
how languages are similar and different, and to aid a
person with a grounding in one approach to a problem
in learning another."
Cutting and pasting code you find on the Internet into production code would be like chewing gum found in the street. - Mike Johnson
With that in mind, try sites that host opensource projects like GitHub, CodePlex, code.google.com, etc.
I'm not sure this question is language agnostic, but I use GitHub this way ;) Other languages may have places where this is possible.
Safari Bookshelf from O'Reilly has many, many books that contain many implementations from which to choose.
http://my.safaribooksonline.com/
I was a subscriber for a few years before coming to my current job, where we have a corporate account! It's one of the best perks, and one of the best resources I have available. I haven't bought a computer book in years.
Aside from sites like this (Stack Overflow) I don't think there's many, maybe CodePlex, but I almost marked you -1 for assuming that code found on the Internet is yours to copy.
I'd suggest reading about software licencing, I hope you'd at least comment where you got it from.
I want to add a "Community" section (Bulletin Board) to my website so everyone can communicate, but I don't know what I'm doing.
How would I go about adding this and which one offers the most documentation and support?
Whatever you do, make certain that you read the instructions on configuring your discussion software to protect you and your community for the worst parts of the internet: spam, spoofing, and abuse.
Make certain that you immediately change the admin password from the one that comes with the installation.
If you leave your communities wide open to all kinds of posting, harvesting, and general mis-use, you'll spend your days playing whack-a-mole with thousands of idiots. Develop your acceptable use policy, configure your boards to support it, then enforce it.
And if the software you are looking at doesn't support things like e-mail verification, moderation, abuse reporting, anti-spamming controls, etc., just keep looking.
Be prepared to spend time managing your community so that it doesn't become another one of the millions of web forums out there full of off topic posts that drive people away from your website.
I think what you needed is a forum software, there are tones of free and open source ones available on the net. DotNetNuke is a .NET one but can be expensive to host and phpBB is another popular choice and there are a lot of cheap hosting solutions.
is your site based on php/mysql or asp/sql? Chances are if you do not know where to even find tables, that you are not able to what you actually want.
HOWEVER, if it's php/mysql, i recommend Cool Php Scripts book. It covers creating sort of a community forum/message board.
As i said again, you are probably not going to do it alone, at least, without a long frustrating learning curve.
You can always post a job and someone would be more than willing to bid on it at elance or rentacoder or any other site of your choice
Wikipedia has a big honking list of forum software. Pick the one that best matches the programming language(s) you're familiar with, the features you need, etc.
This is what you need.
Edit: They don't offer a hosted version there. You can use this instead. It's hosted on it's own site, free, and doesn't require a download.
I find Vanilla to be a much better forum application that phpBB for reasons of aesthetics as well as extensibility. I have not seen/used it in a situation where many sub-forums were required, so depending on your scope it may not be the right choice, but for small-to-medium sized forums I'd suggest trying it first.
First, you need to choose a forum software that matchs your requirements.
Then, just follow the Installation Guide provided by the software you have choosen.
More information at Forum Software Reviews
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been looking for a collaborative tool for developing functional specifications. I am looking for the ability to:
Have multiple users contribute to the specification.
Provide some form of traceability, which could be done manually if needed.
Provide users with the ability to add comments and notes.
Upload and display Visio documents
Upload and display mockup screens using Balsamiq Mockup.
My initial impression is that using a wiki could be a good tool for this task. Does anyone have experience with using a wiki for creating functional specifications? What would be the pros and cons to using a tool like this as opposed to a requirements management tool?
Your input is greatly appreciated!
It's possible to do what you describe, to develop requirements in a collaborative way, in spite of using a wiki. Nothing about the wiki paradigm assists in this process.
I managed a wiki on the Zend Framework project to track proposals for components. They're still using it. Proposals are different from functional specifications, but the usage is similar enough to your question that I think this is relevant.
A wiki doesn't take care of itself. Unless you have someone responsible for managing it and making sure there is some structure and consistency, it quickly becomes a mess. The real-world analogy would be to hand each of your team a blank sheet of paper and tell them to write up their part of the requirements. Problems with this are:
Every contributor has to make up their own document structure, and write about different things in a different order. So it's impossible to compare one page to another.
There's no "index page" to organize all the disparate contributions. No one wants a page to "fall through the cracks," but in a wiki that's the default destiny of any page as soon as it's written.
There's no feedback loop to make sure the writing actually gets done.
The way to make it work is to apply some process to the project, and use the wiki in accordance with that process.
Give people the ability to create a new page in the wiki, but only through an interface that automatically links the new page into the right index.
Define a lifecycle for documents, so they are sure to be drafted, reviewed, and approved at the appropriate stages.
Provide a template for a new page. Provide the section headings that you need in each of these pages, and make part of the review process a confirmation that head section has been filled out adequately.
"What would be the pros and cons to using a tool like this as opposed to a requirements management tool?"
While it seems like a great idea, what you run into are people who can't and won't write.
People who can't write -- well -- can't write. They can't communicate with an email or a wiki or any medium outside voice.
Some people are "disorganized". Actually, writing is too linear and they don't think linearly.
Some people don't get the "write to your audience" and write stuff that's incomprehensible.
Sometimes you can't even figure out what they're talking about, much less what they're writing about. They talk in jargon or code. They don't know much but insist on being heard.
Some people won't write.
Some people refuse to make commitments. Even in a wiki where it can be retracted. They feel they must pre-discuss everything.
Some people are in the habit of doing everything by giving direction to someone else. They either don't write for themselves, or, they make people stand around in their office and listen to them talk and type.
Some people are generally toxic on any kind of project. They spring new requirements at the last minute. Their first response is "that will never work". They don't brainstorm well. When they say it work work, and you beg them for an improvement, they don't have one. They just know it won't work.
My experience is that only programmers can use a Wiki successfully. And only senior-level programmers.
N00bz don't have enough experience to sort out requirements from design from rumors and management fluff.
N00bz don't always have the language skills to write clearly. They may eventually, but one look at their Javadoc comments indicates that they're struggling with the "clarity" part of writing.
It's very appealing. I'm hoping for people to get better at using wiki's because I think it could have a lot of advantages over more traditional approaches where one person interviews everyone and writes things down. But it requires a level of confidence and skill in communication that few people seem to have.
Consider researching Fog Bugz. They tout themselves as the best of the
best for project management. Considering Joel's history I'd give them the
benefit of the doubt. They use a wiki in the way you've just described.
I would suggest signing up for the free trial, if you're serious.
Depending on the size of your project, buying it might be a very good
option.
At very least you could look at how they've structured it, or read the
forums for ideas on how to build your own stripped down version
Specialist tools help keep things on track and introduce a fixed work-flow. This is kind of the point, keeping things focused and functional. Using generic tools like a Wiki might be great for a bunch of programmers but introducing one for 'mixed-mode' work might be bad:
Things can creep and get off-track quickly
Communication can be lost in the medium
Look at things like Basecamp. They can be thought of as an applied wiki, or collaborative tool. A generic tool for specific purpose needs refining. I don't know if MediaWiki or others have enough customization to keep things clean and focused.
Maybe gather the requirements for your requirements management tool (recursive I know) and what aspects (communication aspects) you can take from the wiki culture and an open-communication mindset. If neither requirements management tools or wikis fit the bill, look at building one. Might be the next big thing. It feels like saying Could I use a wiki instead of Bugzilla?
A fixed work-flow webapp for requirements management with an open-communication emphasis that allows people from many roles to see and understand might be good!
We have used TWiki and now FosWiki in that context. There are many things one gets for free (version control, access control, Web-base access, searches, remote management, security patches, ...). In a few minutes, one can define:
a table defining requirements attributes,
which creates interactive forms with field selection and validation (where you can also document discussions and rationales, embed images, attach documents, link to other requirements...),
and then queries on these "requirements" and show them as tables that can be sorted, filtered, printed, reported against, etc. (e.g., http://jucmnav.softwareengineering.ca/ucm/bin/view/ProjetSEG/JUCMNavRequirementsVer2).
Obviously, one can easily use hyperlinks and Wiki links along the way. FosWiki also has features that can be used to enforce specific workflows, if needed. It is also easy to support forms for use cases and other paradigms (we have done this in the past, and that works generally well).
Wikis such as FosWiki are extensible and one could develop further modules for addressing weaknesses related to traceability management and impact analysis, table-based modifications of requirements, overall packaging, etc.
As a middle ground between a free-form wiki and a requirements management tool, consider using a structured wiki like Foswiki. I haven't done any formal requirements management (with a wiki or otherwise), but I have used TWiki (the predecessor to Foswiki) for other tasks, and it permits you to define a workflow, form fields, and so on as you need them, while keeping the flexibility of a wiki when you don't need a formal structure.
I agree with all (most) of the people above - use of a wiki may sound ok, but wiki's are meant to be present information and be updated as needed, not to be used as an interactive project management tool. I would strongly suggest SmartSheet (I'm a strong advocate of the product) - it provides a spreadsheet like interface where you can store multiple files per row/task, send out automated updates to users and maintain specification revisions...
The other approach could be the use of Google email, docs and calendar - a free friendly way of team interaction....I would shy away from issue/bug tracking tools for project management - they tend to have differ on focus: PM tools on the entire project/resource/timeline and Issue tracking tools for specific entered issues....
This may be a bit old now, but I am currently using Atlassian's "Confluence" and it's been great. I currently work as a UX engineer playing the role of "Product Owner" within an Agile process. I can document requirements for discrete interfaces, allow for multiple users' feedback and comments, and intertwine each interface with other interfaces within a larger context (e.g. user story). Everything is very dynamic and template driven. It's suiting my current needs very well.
Two years ago, we shipped a multi-gigabyte Windows application, with lots of video files. Now we're looking to release a significant update, with approximately 1 gigabyte of new and changed data.
We're currently looking at DVD fulfillment houses (like these folks, for example), which claim to be able to ship DVDs to our customers for $5 and up. Does anyone have any experience with these companies?
We've also looked at a bunch of network-based "updater" software. Unfortunately, most of these tools are intended for much smaller programs. Are there any libraries or products which handle gigabyte-sized updates well?
Thank you for your advice!
BITS is a library from Microsoft for downloading files piece by piece using unused bandwidth. You can basically have your clients trickle-download the new video files. The problem, however, is that you'll have to update your program to utilize BITS first.
Depending on who the end user is you have a few options:
Shipping DVD's
This option tends to be rather expensive, and may not be the best way, what if you are shipping it to someone that no longer has the software installed.
HTTP hosting (using Akamai, or any other CDN)
This works rather well for other companies, for example Apple and I believe Microsoft as well.
Bittorrent
It is not just used for illegal content, it will allow you to offload some of the work load of sending the file, and at the same time it is a fast protocol, if you make sure the that the machine seeding has the correct file, the bittorrent protocol will make sure the end user gets the same file with the exact same hash.
You can use the rsync algorithm: http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/