Slashdot Mirror
Hardware-Accelerated Ogg Theora For Firefox Mobile
An anonymous reader writes "Matthew Gregan is working on bringing David Schleef's DSP accelerated port of Theora to Firefox Mobile. He writes on his blog: 'The C64x+ DSP is often found in systems built upon TI's OMAP3 SoC, such as the Palm Pre, Motorola Droid, and Nokia N900. Last year, Mozilla funded a port, named Leonora, of Xiph's Theora video codec to the TI C64x+ DSP. David Schleef conducted the port impressively quickly and published his results. The intention of this project was to provide a high-quality set of royalty-free media codecs for a common mobile computing platform. The initial focus is Firefox Mobile on the N900, so I am working on integrating David's work into Firefox. To experiment with other facilities Firefox could use to accelerate video playback, and test integration, I've been hacking on a branch of a stand-alone Ogg Theora and Vorbis player originally written by Chris Double called plogg.'"
Just... let it die. I know free/open is awesome, but Theora is just bad bad bad on top of awesome. If you refuse to look towards H.264, then at least now you can look towards Google and VP8 now. Bury Theora.
I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant and loses money and time on it. Great, they got hw-accelerated Theora to one single mobile phone. What about all the televisions, other mobile phones, computers, airplanes, PS3, 360, and everything else under the sun that has H.264 hw supported? It's a lost battle.
If I were them, I would seriously start concentrating on the next generation of video codecs. It might be closed H.264 for now, but if you want to get an open source product out there, you have to make it technically better, make sure (and contact!) companies to support it in their products, and just do marketing and PR.
Open source has some advantages, but if it's technically lesser and doesn't work with companies, it's not going to win.
In my mind, hardware accelerated means using fixed-function, special purpose functional blocks in silicon. Saying that using a DSP is hardware acceleration for video codecs is like saying that software is hardware accelerated by the execution units of a CPU.
It's great seeing the benchmarks showing the CPU usage dropping from 99% to 1%, but at the same time the DSP and GPU usage is going up by some unstated amount. It would be really great to see some comparison of how this effects the battery life. Playing MP3s on the C64x can be done in a bit under 15mW, but Theora is a lot more complex and doing the colourspace conversions and compositing on the GPU is going to add a bit too. I'd expect the power usage to be lower than doing it on the CPU, but maybe not by a huge amount.
Either way, it's great that they can free up the CPU to do other stuff. 0.4% of the ARM core isn't really enough to run the scripts that typically accompany a web page that uses the video tag, 99% almost certainly is.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is a good example how open systems drive innovation. Allowing people to tinker with the device (root access, access to the DSP) attracts hackers, which in this case lead to DSP accelerated Theora video decoding. It's quite fitting that Apple is resisting Theora in HTML 5, mainly because their devices don't have accelerated Theora decoding (this is what I assume). While at the same time the restrictions imposed by Apple make it impossible to develop something like this for their iCrap devices (apart from not having root access, no API for accessing the DSP, it would also violate the developer agreement.. since you need some DSP assembly, which is not an approved language).
Will this work be adaptable to the VP8 codecs should Google open source them?
We need a backup in the case H.264 patent owners start collecting some money when H.264 is spread everywhere. If I understood right, the current permission to use H.264 freely in free web content is just temporary and ending December 31 2010! Developing and optimizing these codecs take time, so better start working now. In fact we should hurry!
Also the situation is very similar to using OpenOffice-threat to blackmail discounts for Microsoft Office. So even if you happen to like H.264 more than Theora, this development is a win for you (unless you happen to be H.264 patent owner).
One phone is a good start. If you carefully read the introduction, it says that C64x DSP is quite common. The optimization just have to be taken into use. N900 just happens to be the most open phone right now so it is a natural first target.
Also well working and hardware optimized codec brings some pressure to hardware optimize also H.264 for common platforms.
They made their point quite clearly.
They can't embed the codec and remain truly Free software.
Second, while they could link to platform-provided codecs, it's a support nightmare.
Third, it would legitimize patented crap.
sopssa you back the wrong source, see inside
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
Funny how YOU backed up clone53421 above, here on your part, regarding firefox though (lol, when clone's information was STALE & OUT OF DATE alraady too no less):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
AND YET? LMAO:
FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
That's where you quote above is from, and, Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox 3.6, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
sopssa - How stupid do you feel after your backing up that moron clone, sopssa, when he was quoted in error in that rant of his above that opens this posting of mine in reply, and the URL above that shows you backing his stale & out of date information?
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously sopssa, you lost yet again, and backed the wrong poster in clone53421, in such a stupid mistake on hiis part above.
Obviously, You're too stupid to exist sopssa and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
Please check your facts on the licensing dates, they changed in February.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx
(direct PDF of the press release is here: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf )
This is /. so how dare you try to use an argument that may or may not use facts and or logic in it. Plus I ain't clicking on any fancy links just because you want to blow steam off on the internet. Remember winning an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics, your still retarded after you get that medal.
I've been documenting the software patents situation for Theora here:
Adding information about On2's v8 codec would be very welcome.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
They made their point quite clearly.
They can't embed the codec and remain truly Free software.
Second, while they could link to platform-provided codecs, it's a support nightmare.
Third, it would legitimize patented crap.
It is you who has no idea. Software can be free "gratis" but it is property and therefore cannot have "rights and freedoms". People have right and freedoms which can be extended by licenses by the original rights holders.
They could add H264 support as a plug-in which would have its code stored in an external project which only mozilla staff would have access to. Mozilla could kick off official builds which had the plugin packaged with it while unofficial builds from the community would lack the plugin. Mozilla could also offer the plugin as a separate download either "free" or for a nominal fee to cover licensing costs.
Linking in support for windows 7 and OS X would be trivial. Linux support is platform issue and not the problem of mozilla if they go this route.
It is not crap and it is already legitimized. It has support of HD Cameras everywhere, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Blu-ray. Shall I go on? It is a licensed standard and now the defacto standard for video.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
They got hw-accelerated Theora for an OMAP3 SoC. The testing was on a *single* mobile phone, there's a difference ;)
Anyway, the thing is that theora is as good as H264 or even better at low resolutions and bitrates, that's the reason why they are working on this for mobile phones/devices. Furthermore, having this for a SoC makes it much easier to port to other platforms and will probably work on future evolutions of the SoC as long as they keep the instructions set...
So, it's reasonable what they are doing ;)
Damnshock
You missed a 4th option:
With support for H.264, Theora, (and hopefully soon VP8) all the bases are covered. This is the option that gets my vote, and now I can relax and enjoy the web as it's meant to be enjoyed, without having to worry or whinge about anything.
Because I have yet to see a Theora video site. I say that the price of the additional data traffic costs to get the same quality as H.264 is still more than the license.
I”m all for an open codec. But everybody knows that unless it”s also a *better* codec, we won”t see it being used. Companies have no interest in paying more and don—t care as much about open source as they should for their own good.
File sharers don’t care about licenses anyway.
So we”re left with the tiny subset of private people and very small companies who don”t use it for file sharing.
And then there’s the point of one actually caring about licensing. Honestly I don’t thing the MPEG will ever sue. Because that would kill off H.264 pretty quickly on the web. They have other interests that are more important than a bit of license money.
So I will use H.264 even without a license, just as I did with GIF, JPEG, etc, etc, etc.
Because I think we are stronger, and the can”t ever hurt us. Instead of backing down like a submissive beta-human loser.
Also, the whole discussion is retarded anyway, because it's utterly idiotic of the Firefox team, to not just link to ffmpeg/DirectShow/CoreVideo, and be done with it. No legal issues for them whatsoever. It’s been said a thousand times already. But they want to ram their thing down our throats no matter what.
To me, that is no better than if the MPEG group would force us to pay for a license. Except that they don’t (yet).
Protip: If fighting has made you into what you fought against in the first place, then maybe you should stop, and take a deep breath...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
While streaming H.264 is currently royalty free, distributing a codec for it is NOT. So how about it moneybags, would you care to foot the bill for a worldwide unlimited license from MPEG-LA?
NO? That's what everyone else says, and there's your answer. Mozilla made the choice they did because that's the one they are legally able to make. If you find it that objectionable, perhaps you can help Mozilla get a deal from MPEG-LA?
It's an OS function.
Firefox should have nothing to do with it. The browser should play whatever the OS can support.
This is like Firefox saying they now support Dvorak keyboards.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Heh... Damnshock, have you ever worked with a TI SoC?
The codec was implemented against the C64x+ on a Linux based target on OMAP3.
Each phone isn't magically different in that respect. In fact, TI provides a platform SDK to use the DSP and everybody using Linux as their base OS is using the same SDK and pathways to get the data in/out of the engine and merely specifying their own get/on get/off points, which are actually submitted to the DSP via the API TI provides to each and every customer of their hardware.
What does this mean?
It means that the DSP work done now is available, largely ready for use on:
Motorola Droid ...and anything else using an OMAP3 SoC and Linux.
Palm Pre
Palm Pixi
Nokia N900
BeagleBoard and derivatives...
Gumstix Overo Water & Fire
Open Pandora Handheld
iPhone GS...
Seriously. Done once, able to be used elsewhere as long as you provide consistent interface rules. You might need to adjust the place you get and put the data for the operation, but the algorithm and the vast bulk of the DSP code doesn't change from device to device.
More to the point, you're going to find that with a bit of tweakage, the work can probably be implemented on OMAP2 platforms such as the Nokia N800/N810 as there's more than enough headroom on the C64x+ to lead me to believe that there's a possibility of doing it on a C55x class DSP- not that someone would go to that trouble unless there was a business case for it.
Now, this doesn't mean everybody gets "hardware" Theora yet- you still need to implement for at least Blackfin and Snapdragon as well for the bulk of the mobile device space. The main big deal here is that it has now been shown that it CAN be done and done fairly easily.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
and before you remark... iPhone uses a similar DSP edge so my offhand remark about iPhone alongside with "anything else Linux" shouldn't nullify the argument... I added iPhone at the last moment and didn't qualify it this way.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
``Open source has some advantages, but if it's technically lesser and doesn't work with companies, it's not going to win.''
I've emphasized the part that I think is the main point here. It's not about quality. It's not about cost. It's about how businesses work.
I don't know this for sure, but I would be surprised if H.264 weren't pushed through the normal corporate channels. If you run a company that makes H.264 decoders, you are going to have some of your people meet with people from other companies to try and sell them your decoder. Your salespeople have lunch with representatives from other companies, they play golf with them, and they show them some shiny demos. This is how the game is played: the same way as it is played for many other products.
Conversely, I would be highly surprised if there was nearly as much time, effort, and money being spent on selling Theora. It doesn't even matter very much how good Theora is relative to H.264, or which will be cheaper to run your website on. It's simply not being sold like H.264 is. Theora is this scary thing: made by a bunch of idealists who believe in freedom and openness.
Now picture yourself in the position of any of the large stakeholders in this game. Could be one of the desktop OS giants: Microsoft and Apple. Or one of the entities that are in the multimedia business, say Macromedia, MPEG-LA, Sony, or Universal. Or perhaps you are one of the players in the very important field of mobile devices; say, HTC, RIM, or AT&T. Would you rather go with the technology pushed by the nice salesman who treated you to dinner and made you a nice, business to business, the way things have always been done offer? Or would you go with the rebels, who are screaming that you should implement their technology so that they will be in control instead of you?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant, emm, I mean Microsoft and loses money and time on it. I mean, great, geeks have nice browser on Linux, but what about Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, etc. and everything else...emmm there is no anything else that has Internet Explorer support? It's a lost battle.
If I were them...ok, I can't continue this with straight face.
I have question - why do you ask? Mozilla can't distribute H.264, period. Not in this, nor in parallel universe (assuming that they have softpatents too). What is left for them? Theora is here and while some of cool guys don't use, I and lot of geeks do. It is functional, it is usable. So why do you care? It's their decision.
If you don't dig reasons why open source community sometimes do things they do - fine. If it won't succeed in overtaking H.264 - fine. But you have to think about that there never be one, holy video format. That there will be multiple competitive ones. Theora suits very good for distributing content where you need to avoid to touch softpatents (ok, some people insist that there should be some threats but it's not in the open like MPEG-4, which has special agency who collects royality). H.264 is and probably will be used for distributing lot of commercial videos where distributor already paid royalties. There comes Dirac.
And in the end - open source has always been some kind of underdog, so fighting instead of accepting defeat is in our blood.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant and loses money and time on it. Great, they got hw-accelerated Theora to one single mobile phone. What about all the televisions, other mobile phones, computers, airplanes, PS3, 360, and everything else under the sun that has H.264 hw supported? It's a lost battle.
The number of licensees for AVC/H.264 has passed the 800 mark.
They include - for all practical purposes - every significant player in consumer tech, video production and video distribution in the world.
You could begin, if you like, with
One big thing getting in the way of Theora is the lack of easy encoders.
Have you seen what they call easy? Two lines of cryptic text commands - commands that change from version to version, and aren't listed in the documentation.
With H.264, you can pick up a GUI for free, drag a slider to "Maximum", and wait 2-3 hours. Then you have a wondrous quality video, ready to be streamed, and hardware accelerated on a lot of platforms. There's even websites that will generate all the code for you, so plunking it in your own website is easy, even for the average nitwit that barely knows HTML.
If you haven't got technical superiority, and you haven't got ease of use, what have you got that's going to win people over?
I knew it would some day be possible to have full-HD on my old C64 :-)
One big thing getting in the way of Theora is the lack of easy encoders.
http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/
Here's the user manual:
1. Drag file to the drop area.
2. Click the 'Convert!' button.
3. Enjoy open video in Firefox, Opera, and Chrome.
Doesn't seem too hard.
Anyway, the thing is that theora is as good as H264 or even better at low resolutions and bitrates,
This is not actually true. h.264 is significantly better, including at low resolution and bitrates.
(Theora loses a little bit less at low resolutions, but this is mainly because Theora is so bad at high-resolution video.)
Well, you're right - it certainly is easy!
But it doesn't offer any options for bitrate or quality. It's a bit like taking a screenshot and saving it as a .BMP with MS Paint.
When you upload that to a website, people will shout at you for not compressing it or picking a better format.
This keeps getting brought up, and people keep regurgitating the same bad information. Here's the facts:
It's Slashdot hyperbole and trolling again. I know I fall into that trap myself, but being slightly behind the best does not translate to totally useless. On the contrary: being a format that can potentially be used universally by any platform is a HUGE advantage that more than outweighs the slight difference in quality.
Great, they got hw-accelerated Theora to one single mobile phone.
From TFA: "This SoC (System on Chip) is best known as being the base behind Nokia’s N series of mobiles (including the N900), the Motorola Droid, Palm Pre, and the Beagle Board." That's slightly more than a single mobile phone.
I read what you wrote (as well as your other identity here in clone53421), so much for 'real accounts' (because yours and clone53421 are obviously the same person trying to play 'clever' here, and your days of fooling others using alternate accounts is done here now, sopssa). You and your alter ego clone53421 couldn't prove firefox was faster than opera, so you tried to use a technicality (where timonthy the article poster here put up that firefox 3.6.2 would not release until later this month, but, timothy never updated his news post here http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/0415208/Germany-Warns-Against-Using-Firefox with this quote from timothy's news post "Note: the warning (from the Federal Office for Information Security) is provisional, and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2.") to get the better of the person you're replying to because of timothy's error in posting false or stale news (or just incorrect news), in your implying that firefox is more secure than Opera is. Strangely, before that other person apk could reply, the post and news article was shut. Why? Because firefox showed yet another security error right when that article was put up about firefox 3.6, which forced an early patch to firefox 3.6.2, which again showed yet another security vulnerability (3 in 1 week or thereabouts? Please!) - http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/ , and right when clone53421 was libelling the ac apk and raving that firefox 3.6.2 was secure and that Germany never said not to avoid using firefox, when they did, clearly, as they did about ie. Germany never did so for Opera though. That new error being used by the ac apk would clearly have made you, sopssa, and your obvious alternate account in clone53421 in error (clone is obviously your alter ego here that you use to mod yourself up with is more like it and we all know that goes on here from scum like yourself and others) wrong on that account, yet again, and simply because the DOM error in firefox was a serious security vulnerability, and you knew it, which would have thrown your attempts to make it seem as if firefox is as secure and free of security vulnerabilities as opera is, and it's clearly not. Awfully strange how that article closed 2 weeks before it should have, eh? Not.
I read what you wrote (as well as your other identity here in clone53421), so much for 'real accounts' (because yours and clone53421 are obviously the same person trying to play 'clever' here, and your days of fooling others using alternate accounts is done here now, sopssa). You and your alter ego clone53421 couldn't prove firefox was faster than opera, so you tried to use a technicality (where timonthy the article poster here put up that firefox 3.6.2 would not release until later this month, but, timothy never updated his news post here http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/0415208/Germany-Warns-Against-Using-Firefox with this quote from timothy's news post "Note: the warning (from the Federal Office for Information Security) is provisional, and should be rendered moot by the release later this month of 3.6.2.") to get the better of the person you're replying to because of timothy's error in posting false or stale news (or just incorrect news), in your implying that firefox is more secure than Opera is. Strangely, before that other person apk could reply, the post and news article was shut. Why? Because firefox showed yet another security error right when that article was put up about firefox 3.6, which forced an early patch to firefox 3.6.2, which again showed yet another security vulnerability (3 in 1 week or thereabouts? Please!) - http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/ , and right when clone53421 was libelling the ac apk and raving that firefox 3.6.2 was secure and that Germany never said not to avoid using firefox, when they did, clearly, as they did about ie. Germany never did so for Opera though. That new error being used by the ac apk would clearly have made you, sopssa, and your obvious alternate account in clone53421 in error (clone is obviously your alter ego here that you use to mod yourself up with is more like it and we all know that goes on here from scum like yourself and others) wrong on that account, yet again, and simply because the DOM error in firefox was a serious security vulnerability, and you knew it, which would have thrown your attempts to make it seem as if firefox is as secure and free of security vulnerabilities as opera is, and it's clearly not. Awfully strange how that article closed 2 weeks before it should have, eh? Not.
3 bugs in less than 1 month's time no less, which made FF issue 3.6.2, to fix FF 3.6...
Additionally, then, during the 'debate' where clone53421 was calling me all kinds of names & libelling me too, where sopssa here showed up doing the same? FF had to issue 3.6.3 as well, right during that debate (URL below) - so much for clone53421/sopssa's b.s., that Opera's not more secure vs. known security vulnerabilities, than FF has shown itself to be.
Well... time to put those "2" in clone53421 & sopssa (same person, diff. logon accounts, I have seen this & CAUGHT others in that here, before here - imo, they're SCUM & online "neocheaters" use that little "trick" online in forums, ALL THE TIME (very easy to catch too)) away now.
(AND, despite the moderators here closing that thread 2 weeks earlier than usual -> http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/0415208/Germany-Warns-Against-Using-Firefox )
I suspect because the mods here are "FF fanboys" as much as they *NIX zealots - read on:
----
"This is /. so how dare you try to use an argument that may or may not use facts and or logic in it." - by HazMat 79 (1481233) on Saturday April 17, @09:58AM (#31881310)
Yes, how "dare" one show what is stated in my subject-line above - 3 bugs in Firefox in less than 1 month's time, which CLEARLY illustrates that that sopssa (alias clone 53421, his alternate account he uses to mod up his own posts) is "backing the wrong team" & via nefarious means no less as well, & that Firefox has less vulnerabilities than Opera does? I think/KNOW not.
Firefox will turn up more of these because it is used more, as a reason for it, perhaps more than anything else (not that FF's coding team doesn't do its job, they do, but they are more 'scrutinized' because FF's more used - this same case applies to the "Windows vs. *NIX" debates that go on here + elsewhere online also).
In fact, on that note ('security-by-obscurity'), and on WEB BROWSERS, specifically? Well, this ought to put the final touch on THAT much, from a "hacker/cracker" via the "pwntoown" contest & his statements on that much also:
----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/
"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."
----
Nuff said, on the subject of which browser even the "hacker/cracker/security researcher types" use, & why (security-by-obscurity, @ THE VERY LEAST)...
----
"Plus I ain't clicking on any fancy links just because you want to blow steam off on the internet." - by HazMat 79 (1481233) on Saturday April 17, @09:58AM (#31881310)
Then don't: I'll just post the data involved right here for you to read is all:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free VulnerabilitySecunia Advisory
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
(Which is clearly YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY FOUND IN FIREFOX, during the 03/23/2010 - 04/05/2010 run time of the article's posting here on /., before the mods "strangely closed it early" (not), & where Germany warned its peoples to STAY AWAY FROM FIREFOX (as they did with IE before it no less), but... Germany's NEVER done the same to Opera.)
----
"Remember winning an argument on
The iPhone 3Gs uses a samsung SoC not an OMAP3
LMAO, per my subject-line above? ALL YOU HAVE ARE YOUR EFFETE MOD DOWNSm vs. easily verified facts!
(Which sopssa issues via alternate logon registered accounts here. Sopssa - do you think you're fooling anyone w/ that little trick?).
It's obvious you are also clone53421, because of your showing up SO DEEP into a debate he & I were having (where clone53421 was libelling myself no less, & tossing a fit calling me all sorts of names too, the SURE SIGN OF DEFEAT IN DEBATE no less is that type of frustration) that you just "gave yourself away" clearly.
So, top FF's being warned against by GERMANY, for bugs in FF 3.6, & then again in 3.62 + YET AGAIN issuing 3.6.3 right away in the SAME WEEK NO LESS?? Please...
3 bugs in less than 1 month's time no less, which made FF issue 3.6.3, then 3.6.2 before it, to fix FF 3.6... those are far more factual than your mod downs as "troll", by all means!
So much for clone53421/sopssa's b.s., that Opera's not more secure vs. known security vulnerabilities, than FF has shown itself to be.
Well... time to put those "2" in clone53421 & sopssa (same person, diff. logon accounts, I have seen this & CAUGHT others in that here, before here - imo, they're SCUM & online "neocheaters" use that little "trick" online in forums, ALL THE TIME (very easy to catch too)) away now.
(AND, despite the moderators here closing that thread 2 weeks earlier than usual -> http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/0415208/Germany-Warns-Against-Using-Firefox [slashdot.org] )
3 bugs in Firefox in less than 1 month's time, which CLEARLY illustrates that that sopssa (alias clone 53421, his alternate account he uses to mod up his own posts) is "backing the wrong team" & via nefarious means no less as well, & that Firefox has less vulnerabilities than Opera does? I think/KNOW not.
Firefox will turn up more of these because it is used more, as a reason for it, perhaps more than anything else (not that FF's coding team doesn't do its job, they do, but they are more 'scrutinized' because FF's more used - this same case applies to the "Windows vs. *NIX" debates that go on here + elsewhere online also).
In fact, on that note ('security-by-obscurity'), and on WEB BROWSERS, specifically? Well, this ought to put the final touch on THAT much, from a "hacker/cracker" via the "pwntoown" contest & his statements on that much also:
----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/ [theregister.co.uk]
"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."
----
Nuff said, on the subject of which browser even the "hacker/cracker/security researcher types" use, & why (security-by-obscurity, @ THE VERY LEAST)...
In fact, as to the ISSUANCE OF ANOTHER SECURITY PATCH FOR FireFox?
Well, I'll just post the data involved right here for you to read is all:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/ [secunia.com]
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free VulnerabilitySecunia Advisory
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
(Which is clearly YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY FOUND IN FIREFOX, during the 03/23/2010 - 04/05/2010 run time of the article's posting here on /., in regards to GERMANY warning vs. FF usage... which is before the mods "strangely closed it early" (not), & again - it was where Germany warned its peoples to STAY AWAY FROM
Sopssa (or, should I say clone53421)? Not only were you modded down as a troll, but you had your butt handed to you (both of "you", in sopssa and your alternate logon account here you use to mod yourself up with, in clone52321).
All you have is your b.s., and that was disproven easily here:
Hilariously, while that debate was raging 03/23/2010 thru 04/05/2010?
Heh, FireFox had to issue 3.6.2, & a day later on 04/06/2010, they had to issue 3.6.3 right after... why? SECURITY BUGS!
(Then, rather "oddly"? LOL, the post was closed WAY EARLY here on that topic no less -> http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/0415208/Germany-Warns-Against-Using-Firefox and VERY EARLY (03/23/2010 to 04/05/2010)... "gee, I wonder why?" (not -> http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/ where the FIREFOX DOM ISSUE WAS FINALLY RELEASED PUBLICLY, & caused FF 3.6.3 to issue, in the SAME MONTH, 3 security bugs... ))
No, I'd rethink your "transparent strategems" of effete mod downs and posts closing early and your use of multiple logon id's here only backfired on you, sopssa.
Please: Don't give advice to others! Just because you're fool enough to be a "registered wannabe" here, doesn't mean I have to be, so you can troll me all the more easily? No thanks!
After all - you're the one who started trolling me, and you messed up badly because not only was FireFox 3.6 recommended against by the German Gov't., as was IE (Opera never has had the "dubious honor" mind you), but you libelled the AC APK also (the sure sign of defeat in debate).
APK
P.S.=> The next time "you & yours" even TRY to troll me, sopssa? This will all be put out as to your "motivations why" (your 'geek angst' @ screwing up royally, lol)... now, "eat your words", the bitter taste of defeat for your trolling (how do they taste I wonder, lol?)... apk
I'm sure Mozilla could afford the licensing to distribute h.264, the issue is that the licensing doesn't cover re-distribution which is something that Mozilla cares about. Since h.264 isn't established as the codec for HTML5 video and considering Firefox has a significant browser market share, it is certainly worth them holding out on this one. I'm not sure there is much chance of Theora displacing h.264 (though this news might change things), but it could hold back h.264 enough to give the VP8 codec that Google is rumoured to be releasing under an open licence a chance at doing so.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996 which was so far down, there is almost no way you could have come upon it. Yet "oddly enough" (not), you did "suddenly show up" to try to cut down your betters. Who are you trying to fool here? I read that exchange, and the ac apk has done more than yourself that was noted well in respectable publications and trade show contests like Microsoft Tech Ed, in this art and science, and certainly more than clone53421 has or ever will. I think this is the part that made clone53421 "pop" and start libelling apk along with name calling. Truth hurts is why.
Now also, from the data you yourself posted on Windows IT Pro, the ac APK proved his point in that Windows IT Pro article: That memory manager programs do indeed help on Exchange Servers (and other applications also) by recovering them when they stall due to memory fragmentation, and he also showed Dr. Mark Russinovich, just before that article was made no less, how to correct errors in his pagedefrag.exe program, due to M.R.'s hardcodes of paths to files (eventlogs and registry hives), and that's a "native mode" NT based OS app too. APK's closing comments on it, however, sealed it, because he stated VISTA would flop, and it did, due largely to problems in attempting to make Windows like UNIX's are, in memory mgt. and other areas (file copies & more that dealt in memory use). He proved correct over time, and, to the point that Microsoft had to end up redoing portions of how they used memory in fact.
You tried to cut him down, and this is your "just reward" is all sopssa: Humiliation. I'd reconsider whom you try to "backup" or "put down" next time, sopssa. You lost by backing the wrong team in clone53421 the libeller.
Clone53421, your obvious alter-ego alternate logon registered account here? He (you) apparently couldn't stand the fact that Firefox showed yet another error, beyond 3.6, also beyond 3.6.2 (which issued during that debate no less to cover up why Germans said to avoid Firefox, as they did IE before too), and lastly issuing 3.6.3 during that timeframe of that article which was (03/23/2010 through 04/05/2010, when it "suddenly was closed" and VERY early too for a slashdot news post, odd that eh? Not!), which is when the DOM error in Firefox showed up, the last day that article stayed open for comment (very early close too).
That only served in proving Firefox is more prone to security vulnerabilities by far versus Opera (which has a smaller history of security vulnerabilities typically, and Opera's also been proven faster on all levels on webbrowsers, from parsing HTML to javascript processing & usually in the lead, over time on both areas).
" I've also seen your mindless threads and how you have trolled a single article for the past 6 years." - by sopssa (1498795) * on Sunday April 18, @02:46PM (#31888872)
I only responded to others, and CLEANLY defeated them, using verifiable facts from the likes of Microsoft no less. From the data you yourself posted on Windows IT Pro? LMAO, ok:
There, I proved that memory manager programs do indeed help on Exchange Servers (and other applications also) by recovering them when they stall due to memory fragmentation, & via DOCUMENTED FACTS FROM MICROSOFT ITSELF - once I put that out?
LMAO - All the morons from arstechnica (Jay Little & Jeremy Reimer + Jarrett DeAngelis, a doctoral student those 2 brought in to "try to get the best of me", lol, so much for that -> ) had to either leave, or just eat their words (Jarrett DeAngelis, posts around here as starkruzr too as he did there at Windows IT Pro).
In fact, Reimer's libel ended his "articles" being shown at arstechnica, because I exposed him as a done nothing & no CSC or CIS degrees (not even a cert) or years-to-decades of professional "hands on experience in the trenches" in this art & science of computing.
Jay Little (a 3rd rate VB coder Reimer first brought there to try to "get the best of me" - because he cannot himself, not enough technical know-how is why in Reimer, so he uses Lackeys) failed hugely!
LOL, Jay Little literally stated, verbatim:
"I am an expert on Exchange server"...
Sure he is/was - NOT! Not when I proved that MEMORY OPTIMIZERS can restart STALLED exchange servers!
Then? Jay Little ran...
Albeit, after he chased me to NTCompatible.com, to try to harass me there and track posts I did to try to "cut them down", & LMAO, yet again Jay Little only got himself kicked from there (as he has @ Channel 9 on Microsoft too) messing up on ramdisks (and windows crash code definitions).
Jay Little then got websites of his removed in their ENTIRETY at CrystalTech.com, and petitiononline.com (where in the latter he made death threats directed MY way no less). Talk about "geek angst". Reimer, like Little, had portions of his website removed for libelling me as well.
It seems that LIBEL is the "last resort" of the defeated online... and they only end up paying for it.
APK
P.S.=> IF you're going to try to "cut me down"? At least tell the truth of what happened, sopssa... otherwise? You'll look like a fool, AGAIN... pretty simple! apk
"I've also seen your mindless threads" - by sopssa (1498795) * on Sunday April 18, @02:46PM (#31888872)
Calling me mindless now (more name tossing), ok: Show me, show us all reading, that you've done more in this art & science than I have (which *might* start to earn you the right of stating I am "mindless"):
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10
(And, because I got LUCKY to have been exposed to some really GREAT classmates, professors, & colleagues on the job over time as well)
APK
P.S.=> Additionally, vs. what you said here, in your starting of trolling of myself -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
(Where you noted the MEMORY OPTIMIZATION HOAX by Dr. Mark Russinovich (now of Microsoft, & a former "colleague" of mine as we both worked for Sunbelt in the mid to late 1990s no less, who actually THANKED ME via email, for showing him that he HARDCODED (rookie error no less, from a PHD) paths to registry hives and event logs in his pagedefrag.exe app)) ?
You had better take a peek @ what REALLY occurred there @ Windows IT Pro:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1621832&cid=31889042
(So, sopssa: How does it taste, eating YOUR OWN WORDS, troll? "The bitter taste of defeat"?? You deserve it, for trying to make me look poorly here, and being way, Way, WAY OFF on your part, as per usual!)... apk
I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant and loses money and time on it.
I think it's great, completely aside from the merits of any video codec or open vs proprietary. I'm just happy to read about software makers standing behind their solution and pushing to make it work. A lot of Slashdotters rightly pointed out hardware support as a major issue for Mozilla's Theora support, and Mozilla seems to be working on it. Obviously, this is a small step against a massive obstacle, that should go without saying (but I'm not actually new here). I think it's great precisely because it would be so much easier for Mozilla to take the H.264 path of least resistance.
Everything to do with the web is becoming more and more... convergent. The Internet doesn't crumble to a halt if browsers don't all work the same; we still got by when some sites built their layouts with divs, and others with layers. I'd much rather see smart people still working to develop different implementations of things then reach the point where everyone gets behind whatever manages to be the entrenched giant.
It's a lost battle.... Open source has some advantages, but if it's technically lesser and doesn't work with companies, it's not going to win.
That could be said now and in the past about so many things that didn't give up and go away, and yet have users. You can still buy Ogg portable media players, because even though they've gone from ugly to pricey, they've always found a customer base. I've read comments that lament that pushing this issue could be the death of Firefox, but they will find a user base (not everyone picks a browser on the ability to stream videos). Opera is still around, thanks to its loyal users, and it's not even open source.
As good as it was to see so many friends and family members shift from IE5 & 6 to Firefox, I don't think there's any danger of those people reverting to IE6. I don't mind if they switch to Chrome or Opera or Safari, so long as it does the job well enough. Mozilla (or any other company/project) fighting the uphill battle and supporting what it thinks is best isn't something I ever want to see stop, particularly with the Internet. The strength of the "web development platform" is in full bloom, and with it seems to come an assumption that it's vital for all browsers to always go in a direction that supports and strengthens the "web platform" concept.
Well, I work in web development, and I admit it's definitely nicer when browsers are more consistent at handling the same code the same way. Nicer, meaning, we can officially support more browsers. IMHO, that luxury isn't worth moving into an age where browsers all emphasise conformity rather than developing what makes them unique in their vision.
Why do you paste this list of where your software have been included at? Sure, good for you and I'm happy for you. But it doesn't back your claims one bit. I'm quite certain many of us here on slashdot have an awesome (in a nerdy way) history. If you want to expand that outside nerdy stuff, I'm quite sure it's even more awesome. Random fact: When I was 14 I slided down a snowy hill, saw a girl I liked and my friend told me to go for it and hug her. We dated for the next 3 years. But what does that have to do with the conversation?
I'm all up for a good debate (do you see how I love it here on slashdot?), but you make no good arguments by assaulting people or telling them they are someone else like you did with me and clone53421. You also do not win anything by claiming you "won" or "beat" someone, or by having multiple personalities and posting under them backing up each other - while by the style of text it's clear it's you.
Make an account, start providing some real information, debating or talk and discuss about real things.
You initially assaulted me about Firefox. Just so you know, like you, I am an Opera user.
Why do you paste this list of where your software have been included at?
You called him mindless is why, and since you did, he only asked if you have done more or better things, yourself, than he could show in this science of computing. His statement elicited enough of a reaction (after you said you would not speak to he also earlier) to you after you called him mindless that you needed to defend yourself.
Albeit, you only did so, with an evasion of his questions (and that's all you had in response when asked if you could show you did more than he has that was noted well by others in this science in written publications, commercially sold software, and in large technical competitions also).
you make no good arguments by assaulting people or telling them they are someone else like you did with me and clone53421
You called him mindless. He showed otherwise. Clone53421 called him a lot worse and kept it up and not only made large mistakes in doing so but was driven to the point of name calling and libel (and clone53421's also ultimately been shown as being incorrect too, because firefox did show a new security vulnerability, 3rd that month no less).
I also found it rather odd that thread closed in less than 2 weeks too, when Germany warned their people to stay away from firefox and before that internet explorer. That never did happen for Opera, and Opera is proven faster by far in many legitimate analysis he used in the other post where that debate occurred (and you also came in very late there, starting up with the ac apk here).
You get what you got for that type of behavior in calling the ac apk mindless as you did. What you got was an exposure of the fact you have not done anything that others noted as good in publication or said tech shows like MS tech ed, as he has (after you called him mindless and what have you, no less).
HTML5 will do nothing to replace embeddable TrueType fonts
No, HTML won't do it because that's something that has been doable with src, url & format keywords in CSS. The only problem is that not all browsers supports those.
HTML is about content, CSS is about visual style.
vector animation
Again, animation isn't HTML's job. It's Javascript's. And SVG could be animated with DOM. Once again the main obstacle is getting the specification adopted everywhere.
built-in MP3 and MP4 support
Supporting audio is a problem tackled by the Audio tag.
Specific codecs: Well that's where the whole debate is. Both Mp3 and Mp4 are covered by patents. Some like Mozilla feel that, as an open standard, HTML5 should also use codecs which are freely implementable by anyone.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]