Firefox 33 Integrates Cisco's OpenH264

Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 01:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Even though the codec source code is available, it is compiled by Cisco and provided to Mozilla. Something in me doesn't 100% trust that Cisco won't use this as an opportunity to put hidden spyware on everyone's computers. The US gov't can force American companies to secretly implement spyware, right?

Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by ledow · 2014-07-23 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

But with access to the source code, it's easily possible to verify that the binary supplied corresponds to the source.
That's how we know that TrueCrypt has no "binary" backdoors - we just try different combinations of compiling, noting the differences, until we find the one that Cisco used. If we never find the exact combination, the differences between a "known good" compile of the original source and the final binary make the amount of code to blind-check almost negligible in comparison.
It's when people DON'T provide source that you should be suspicious, or when you can't get close to their source providing their binary.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 01:49 · Score: 1

I wonder when we'll see the results of this test on Slashdot, and if it will be re-tested whenever they push out an auto-update. It might be good for a year or two until they've earned our trust, and then they spike it.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Alain+Williams · 2014-07-23 01:55 · Score: 1

Who modded this troll, it should be modded insightful? Are the NSA operatives getting in quick these days ?
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:02 · Score: 0

It's when people DON'T provide source that you should be suspicious, or when you can't get close to their source providing their binary.
Reading does not mean understanding. It takes more effort to hide malice in an open source project, but it is still very possible. It becomes geometrically easier to hide hostile behavior as the size of the source code increases, or even if there is simply no planning to the structure of the system (like OpenSSL).
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-07-23 02:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Cisco heard your concerns and has responded: Development and maintenance will be overseen by a board from industry and the open source community.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-07-23 02:08 · Score: 0

Even though the codec source code is available, it is compiled by Cisco and provided to Mozilla. Something in me doesn't 100% trust that Cisco won't use this as an opportunity to put hidden spyware on everyone's computers.
I don't believe "everyone" is using Firefox these days - quite the opposite. So most of us aren't going to lose any sleep over this possibility.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:10 · Score: 5, Funny

That's why I know I'm safe. I use OS X, which is a closed-source OS. And since it's closed, the government doesn't have access to it.
I love the smell of bad logic in the morning.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by wonkey_monkey · 2014-07-23 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

But with access to the source code, it's easily possible to verify that the binary supplied corresponds to the source.
Is it that easy? My understanding was that you'd at least have to have identical versions of the compilation tools to have any hope of coming close to a bit-for-bit match on the binary.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Kardos · 2014-07-23 02:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seems like a problem with a simple solution: Cisco needs to publish their build procedure.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by tokizr · 2014-07-23 02:20 · Score: 1

I don't know exactly how this verification is usually done but I would assume it would involved a more relaxed search checking for instance that the same system calls which are implicit in the source are in the provided binary (and only those), or that the symbol table matches what is expected. An not a direct byte to byte comparison.

But I could be wrong so I hope someone else with experience in this area can enlighten us further.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by some+old+guy · 2014-07-23 02:48 · Score: 1

They sure seem to be, or at least groveling apologists if not operatives.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:50 · Score: 0

NSA may not be smart because libertarians uses linux/bsd!
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:57 · Score: 2

Are the NSA operatives getting in quick these days ?
Operation Frist Post
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Wrath0fb0b · 2014-07-23 03:16 · Score: 5, Informative

No. In fact it's absurdly difficult to reliably create reproducible builds. Debian has been working on this since at least 2009 (afaict) and has been plowing through issues but you still can't get an identical Kernel as the .deb. Heck, it was 8 weeks just for the Tor browser.
It's not just the compilation tools, it's the entire build environment that needs to be homogenized. All kinds of components will insert uname/hostname and paths into the binary, filesystems list the contents of a directory in undefined order, timestamps and permissions are embedded into tarballs and documentation, different locale produces other weirdness.
tl;dr: it's much harder than just installing an identical version of clang and hitting make.
[ And, as an aside, this goes back decades. The infrastructure around builds was never designed with reproducibility as a design goal. We are basically retrofitting this new requirement on decades of legacy code that never even considered that we would want such a thing ... ]
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not only will it be your choice to accept the binary, but Mozilla also shares those concerns. Hence why they're sandboxing the CDM plugins to limit their access and ability to do anything except what they advertise. We'll have the choice to trust Mozilla's work, disable it, or partake in an effort to confirm that it's as legit as we want, so I honestly fail to see any major issue here.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by smash · 2014-07-23 04:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why the fuck would they bother, when they can just do that to all of the backbone routers you use?

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by vux984 · 2014-07-23 04:39 · Score: 1

No. In fact it's absurdly difficult to reliably create reproducible builds.
Yes and no. Yes, absolutely, its absurdly difficult to create identical binaries, for the reasons you mentioned.
But you can pretty reasonably get close enough to make manual inspection of the differences easy enough. And as you said the differences are usually filepaths, hostnames, timestamps etc so one can identify the difference as benign pretty easily.
That's not good enough for general build reproducibility, but for one off code to binary verifications of key pieces its reasonable.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by higuita · 2014-07-23 06:08 · Score: 1

Don't forget that the GMP only have access to a certain number of firefox functions and runs inside a sandbox. That code is treated as insecure and as it have a very defined objective, is easier to sandbox (ie: no filesystem access, no network, etc).
Yes, is not perfect, but it's a good workaround for those software patents and DRM.
Those that still don't trust it, can choose to not install the Cisco OpenH264, its a "plugin" after all

--
Higuita
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 06:21 · Score: 0

How about trusting trust? http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
Can we verify the integrity of the compiler?
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Tokolosh · 2014-07-23 06:44 · Score: 1

How do we know that the board members have not been served with national security letter gag orders?

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by aliquis · 2014-07-23 07:17 · Score: 1

Then there's just the small trouble in getting hold of a copy of NSACC.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by murkwood7 · 2014-07-23 07:37 · Score: 0

We need a rating of -1, Retarded

--
- X/Y -
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Randle_Revar · 2014-07-23 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

how about "-1 whoosh"?

--
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by BitZtream · 2014-07-23 09:13 · Score: 1

Once you remove the strings from the app in question and look at the code, no its not really all that difficult.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by BitZtream · 2014-07-23 09:17 · Score: 1

How do we know that we haven't been served with national security letters??!?!?!?!
Seriously, nothing will make you happy. Sad part is you're whining about this sort of thing, but you still use a computer that boots from proprietary code on a proprietary processor. The BIOS/EFI is the easiest place to insert a back door and is in fact the place that many motherboards emulate physical hardware using system management mode of the CPU.
But hey, you worry about cisco back dooring your video codec used by the browser with waning market share and about the only thing it can claim is that its more popular than safari.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by HiThere · 2014-07-23 09:37 · Score: 1

I don't think you understand "trusting trust". If you have the binary, and you are verifying it. that's not the same process at all.
However, no, you can't trust it. It's not because you can't verify it, it's because you can't do it without violating their patents. Also because it's quite difficult to verify large code bases. But if I understand things correctly, even to translate the binary into assembler code would violate their patent.
P.S.: Trusting trust was about a compiler that compiled itself. And it showed that no source code inspection could reveal the inserted trojan, because the compiler binary would insert it even though it wasn't in the source code. That would be analogous if this were a code compiler that compiled itself.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by HiThere · 2014-07-23 09:40 · Score: 1

It's a reasonable thing to worry about, but not to fixate on. As you pointed out there are worse problems.
OTOH, this is a plugin that directly manages communication over the net, so it's quite appropriate to be somewhat concerned.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco by Wrath0fb0b · 2014-07-23 10:12 · Score: 1

The only thing you can cryptographically sign is a binary. The rest is inspection by hand which won't scale.
Re: Trusting a binary from Cisco by oobayly · 2014-07-23 10:29 · Score: 1

They're probably the same people who signed off the switches I bought. The same switches that conveniently changed into a hub* after a couple of months. Maybe they expected them to be rebooted constantly.
* Entries weren't being added to the ARP table, probably because of a timestamp overflow.

Licensed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 01:41 · Score: 1

Not for long...

so-called by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 01:42 · Score: 1

That is not how you use this word.

Great by Burz · 2014-07-23 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I always wanted a backdoor in my browser.

Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:33 · Score: 1

You have always had one.
Re:Great by smash · 2014-07-23 04:05 · Score: 1

If you think CIsco need to backdoor your browser to own all your shit, you are tragically naive.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Great by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-07-23 04:57 · Score: 1

I always wanted a backdoor in my browser.
I really did try searching for how this plugin retrieval works but must not have use the right search terms.
To stay license compliant *AND* safe, Mozilla should sign the modules as they become available, and Firefox should only download them if both Mozilla's and Cisco's signatures verify.
That being done, there's very little difference between Mozilla shipping the code to you as part of a Firefox update and having the browser fetch it afterwards.
But if Mozilla is _only_ trusting Cisco's signature, then, yeah, wow, holy cow, back a truck into it.
Links welcome.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Great by Burz · 2014-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1

Why should Mozilla use their own key to sign code they did not compile themselves?
Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 06:33 · Score: 0

Because they are packaging a binary that they vouch for.
Signatures are assertions for binaries that you vouch for. Whether you built it from source or not doesn't matter.
Re:Great by dotancohen · 2014-07-23 07:28 · Score: 1

I always wanted a backdoor in my browser.
You must be new here. Posting a link to an open backdoor, to be viewed in your browser, was once a slashdot tradition.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Great by Burz · 2014-07-23 16:31 · Score: 1

They don't know what's precisely in those blobs, so its presumptuous of Mozilla to vouch for them. Its more prudent to put Cisco's key in Firefox and let Cisco vouch for their own code.
Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-24 08:26 · Score: 0

Because it was Mozilla's great idea to side load a binary blob?
I may trust Mozilla to write the browser that my distro compiles. That does not necessarily translate into trusting any black box Cisco would like to run on my system. Mozilla could at least inspect the build and sign it as a way of saying they've looked at and trust a given build.

So Kind of open? by robstout · 2014-07-23 01:48 · Score: 0

Kind of open, I guess?

Re:So Kind of open? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-07-23 01:57 · Score: 5, Informative

The source is open: you can read it, you can compile it and compare binaries, etc.
In fact, it is BSD licensed.
But that only covers the copyright. The patent is not opened (nor owned by Cisco), and seem to prevent derivative works.
Cisco paid the fees to use the patent in this one application, and open-sourced it to the world. Seems like a great solution, security-wise, and clever legally.
And, it becomes just more BSD code when the patent expires in... what, a decade? Or if the new Supreme Court ruling is found to invalidate the patent.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:So Kind of open? by alci63 · 2014-07-23 02:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, this is a software only patent... so it's not legal in Europe (or is it). Some Linux distro might consider integrating this code directly, and compile it instead of letting FF grab a blob from Cisco. Maybe distribute it in a special repository, that users would activate where it legal... Notice VideoLAN for example does play HEVC (aka H.264), and does not licence anything...
Re:So Kind of open? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:53 · Score: 0

There is the issue of what MPEG-LA intends to do with their grip on things in 2016, correct? How is this implementation, not effected?
Re:So Kind of open? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-07-23 05:53 · Score: 1

It would be kind of ironic if it were a software-only patent, since one of the reasons H.264 is amazing is the hardware acceleration built into everything.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:So Kind of open? by BitZtream · 2014-07-23 09:43 · Score: 3, Informative

... all software is implemented on hardware. Even the instructions you send to your processor get translated into other software (microcode) which is what actually gets executed.
Hardware acceleration still runs software.
H.264 isn't 'amazing' because of the hardware acceleration built into everything, its extremely convenient. If OGG was built into everything, we'd be using that instead because thats what would allow us to have long battery life and lower heat dissipation.
H.264 isn't software anyway, its a collection of algorithms and protocols. There are multiple software implementations of H.264, of which cisco's is only one.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 01:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

They've already destroyed FF and changed it from a browser with its own identity into Chrome's obsessed former friend who mimics her every move and style and is planning to kill her and assume her identity some day.

Honestly, there's nothing left to call Firefox now. If I want a browser like Chrome, I'll run Chrome. If I want a browser like Firefox, then I have to use an old one or a fork.

Stop punching your users in the face, and give them back the control they had over their browser.

Re:Is anyone left to care? by roca · 2014-07-23 01:59 · Score: 1

You have control. As the article says:
> Users will have options to activate or deactivate it
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:07 · Score: 0

If you can't manage to read and see that you don't have to use this, well, stay on chrome and enjoy the sound of your whiny voice.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:09 · Score: 1

You have control. As the article says:
> Users will have options to activate or deactivate it
I may have control over this plugin, but I don't have control over my whole browsing experience the way that I did 8 versions ago.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-07-23 02:10 · Score: 1

You have control. As the article says:
> Users will have options to activate or deactivate it
It sounds like the person to whom you're replying deactivated Firefox quite some time ago.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:03 · Score: 1

I don't have control over my whole browsing experience the way that I did 8 versions ago.
That would be last Monday's version, right ?
Re:Is anyone left to care? by stoploss · 2014-07-23 03:03 · Score: 2

I may have control over this plugin, but I don't have control over my whole browsing experience the way that I did 8 versions ago.
AKA "last month". Mozilla really lost the community's goodwill with that move. There was no compelling rationale to support FF after that. Their insistence on using a single-process model really destabilizes their browser, for example. Every release seems to remove functionality or force you to change the way you use the browser in ways you don't want. It's like they hired Gnome 3/Unity/Windows Metro program managers and asked them how best to fuck up their main product.
Thanks to this change to their support model I relegated FF to rare use when I need to check to confirm if another browser is being flaky or if the site itself is to blame.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by nullchar · 2014-07-23 05:07 · Score: 1

Firefox's strength was always a large library of plugins, never it's User Interface.
Arguably Firefox's User Experience has degraded, as it is not as configurable as before.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by stoploss · 2014-07-23 05:27 · Score: 3

"Living 4 years ago" is a claim that's incompatible with you referencing features that aren't officially released yet. Thanks to your flame I actually googled again about it, and like the past 7 years I have checked, there are "plans" to multiprocess Firefox.
However, multiple process Firefox doesn't actually exist in practice yet. Go ahead and enable your multiprocess flags in about:config. Spawn a bunch of tabs and windows and admire the "pretty underlining" on the tab titles. Now check your task manager and count the number of Firefox instances. What's that, you say? There's only one?
Now kill the single Firefox process that's there and see how many FF windows stay open. Zero is the answer.
Fail.
Instead of astroturfing for FF, perhaps you should sit down at your desk at Mozilla and get back to coding your has-been product.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Pentium100 · 2014-07-23 07:51 · Score: 2

Unlike Chrome, you can get the normal UI of Firefox. I have customized it such that My Firefox 31 looks almost exactly like Firefox 3.6.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by ravenlord_hun · 2014-07-23 09:57 · Score: 1

You do know those addon "fixes" are temporary at best and utterly dependant on whatever changes the FF devs feel like doing, right? If the mod gets broken then everyone is welcome to the chrome-copy UI. But that's no problem, right? We all love Chrome, don't we?
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 10:36 · Score: 0

They've already destroyed FF and changed it from a browser with its own identity into Chrome's obsessed former friend who mimics her every move and style and is planning to kill her and assume her identity some day.
Honestly, there's nothing left to call Firefox now. If I want a browser like Chrome, I'll run Chrome. If I want a browser like Firefox, then I have to use an old one or a fork.
Stop punching your users in the face, and give them back the control they had over their browser.
There are some differences between chrome and firefox in terms of what plugins can do. We use greasemonkey pretty heavily to customize our work tools here and you can do things like create menu's to manipulate variables in firefox that you just can't do in chrome.
ex: a preference to include a color key or not, have a light or dark theme, direct links to one tool or another...
It's possible to have these variables set in chrome but you have to edit the greasemonkey to declare the value.
I realize this is a bit pedantic but plugins can be a very integral part of the browser experience. Adblock works differently (better) in FF than Chrome because of the differences in exposed functionality.
Matt
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 11:01 · Score: 0

Are you insane or just an asshole? Of COURSE things will break, and someone will have to fix them! Either that means Mozilla, or the community. And why should Mozilla have to be the ones to do everything? Just building us a solid core browser engine with a bare-bones UI is what made Firefox popular to begin with, and now that Mozilla is trying to get back to that point all they get is whining from people who don't want to do anything, except pretend that Firefox is Chrome because it doesn't immediately cater to their whims without some minimal customization effort. Fuck off already!
This culture of entitlement has got to end... if you don't get your way you'll do everything in your power to discredit and ruin the effort, short of actually pitching in and helping out. You spoiled brats need to stop pretending that the world owes you everything and start actually supporting the efforts that give you a free browser where all you have to do is install some damn addons.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 11:07 · Score: 0

Are you really so much of a pompous asshole that the moment someone actually shows some support for Firefox and the hard work they're putting into it you must label them an astroturfer? Well, that explains that. You just go on back to discrediting Mozilla and Firefox with every inane thing you say. I'm sure that will help things out. You self-important windbag.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by ckedge · 2014-07-24 02:37 · Score: 1

Cool. Was it easy to find all the things and settings to do this? Or do you have your own list of plugins and settings that were necessary?
Re:Is anyone left to care? by ravenlord_hun · 2014-07-24 04:53 · Score: 1

Entitlement, what? If they were doing out of altruism - THEN I could understand your point. That is not the case, however. Mozilla employees are paid (largely by Google, iirc) and it's literally just another job. It only stands to reason that if they are not doing a good job, they get criticized. I doubt they care too much anyway. It's not like they get fired over something as trivial as user feedback... unlike some of us.

And seriously, if pointing out flaws in a new design is "ruining the effort" then simply plug your ears and go back to your la-la land where everything is always peachy and your moz-dev gods are infallible.
Re:Is anyone left to care? by Pentium100 · 2014-07-24 06:38 · Score: 1

I use Classic Theme Restorer and Status-4-Evar. That makes it almost like the old Firefox, I just need to customize the toolbar and I'm done.

Version number confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 01:58 · Score: 4, Informative

(reads summary)

Hum, Interesting...firefox 33 integrates, mumble, mumble...wait, something's not right with this picture.

(Scrolls back a few lines on the RSS feed)

Firefox 31 Released

Aha! I knew it. Latest version is 31! Must be a typo...

(One angry RTFA later)

Oh, hang on...They are referring to the yet unreleased, possibly future version of Firefox. With no indication whatsoever of that fact in the summary, even though a (stable?) version of Firefox was just recently released, as highlighted on this very same website less than 24 hours ago.

...

Would it have killed anyone to point this out somewhere? You know, for those of us at home who don't keep up with Firefox's versioning madness?

Re:Version number confusion by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:08 · Score: 1

You don't have to keep track of Firefox version. By this time next month they'll announce FireFox 40, with H.265 support.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Version number confusion by Cro+Magnon · 2014-07-23 02:37 · Score: 1

Version 31 was yesterday's version. 33 will be tomorrow's version.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Version number confusion by Em+Adespoton · 2014-07-23 04:47 · Score: 1

What makes it even more confusing is that last night, I was reading about the new features being added to Firefox 32 which is currently available to testers.
I've heard of sprints, but this is getting a bit silly.
Re:Version number confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 05:00 · Score: 0

No, version 33 is scheduled for 3 months from new.
Re:Version number confusion by NotInHere · 2014-07-23 12:03 · Score: 1

Noted, should have used another tense in the subject.
Re:Version number confusion by BZ · 2014-07-23 13:45 · Score: 1

It's really not that complicated. Firefox releases work like this: 6 weeks of development, 12 weeks of testing and stabilization (split up into two 6-week phases called "aurora" and "beta"; the former corresponds more or less to feature freeze and the latter more or less to "code freeze unless we discover a stop-ship issue"), then release.
So right now 31 is released, 32 is beta, 33 is aurora, and development is happening on 34.

At fucking last by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

Can we finally use the tag with H.264 files and just forget about the rest?

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Re:At fucking last by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:07 · Score: 1, Informative

Always really preview before clicking submit.
Can we finally use the the <video> tag with H.264 files and just forget about the rest?

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:At fucking last by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-07-23 02:23 · Score: 2

Always really preview before clicking submit.
Can we finally use the the <video> tag with H.264 files and just forget about the rest?
No, since Firefox is currently limiting the use of this plugin to WebRTC - which basically means it's not available for anything actual users want to do, such as watch html5 video.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:At fucking last by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:26 · Score: 1

Another stupid idea by the Firefox team, then.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:At fucking last by Blaskowicz · 2014-07-23 02:49 · Score: 2

The article mentions Youtube, without giving any specifics. Seems they're shipping the plugin greyed out, disabled etc. and then WebRTC stuff will work (does anyone have either used that?) and then maybe you'll be able to use html5 video in some future version, maybe.
Setting the politics aside, and even whether they intend or not to provide html5 video support, it feels better to do that staged release. I sure would want that the kinks, bugs, networking and security issues are worked out before it is unleashed on millions of unsuspecting users.
Well, people will get that h264 support for WebRTC even though they have no idea what the f that means, but as no one uses WebRTC it wouldn't be as drastic as Youtube support.
Re:At fucking last by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:04 · Score: 0

No, because i will disable it.
Re:At fucking last by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 04:17 · Score: 1

No video for you.
NEXT!

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:At fucking last by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 05:32 · Score: 0

Um, it's not their fault you're ignorant of how it works while it's still being developed. Just hop into about:config and enable media.mediasource.enabled, then media.peerconnection.video.h264_enabled. Voila. You didn't even have to pretend that you knew what was going on, you just had to ask. What they need to do now is finish it, and make it more efficient, which hopefully they'll be able to do by Firefox 33.
Re:At fucking last by NotInHere · 2014-07-23 05:38 · Score: 1

OpenH264 only ships with a video decoder, no AAC audio decoder. The hack Cisco made with OpenH264 won't work, as the AAC licensing pool company removed caps. For WebRTC, this is no problem, as opus will be used as audio encoding.
But MP4 won't work. Perhaps there is potential for a matroska-based h.264+opus format, as when IE and safari (which don't have opus for the audio element yet) implement WebRTC, they need opus encoders and decoders. Then its only a small step to support this mixed format.
Re:At fucking last by evilviper · 2014-07-23 06:29 · Score: 2

The article mentions Youtube, without giving any specifics. Seems they're shipping the plugin greyed out, disabled etc. and then WebRTC stuff will work (does anyone have either used that?) and then maybe you'll be able to use html5 video in some future version, maybe.
You don't need H.264 for Youtube. You can watch everything there, and at several other sites using the "Video WithOut Flash" plugin:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
It works pretty damn well.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:At fucking last by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 08:14 · Score: 0

i'm kind of annoyed with mozilla for other reasons but i don't see this h264 situation as their fault. IIRC this h264 bullshit is the result of some slaveware peddling scum and their closed source video codec. besides, firefox plays webm just fine with html5 video tag, it just doesn't support this closed codec. Site devs just needed to upload both video files for compat with all modern browsers. i agree that one file should work with all browsers but that should be the open source codec not one where you have to beg from cisco.
Re:At fucking last by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 08:19 · Score: 0

firefox plays webm just fine with html5 video tag. google just needs to hurry up and convert youtube over to using it for all their videos. Flash could die and the file sizes are smaller too. not sure why it's taking so long but i hear they have more than a few videos over there.
Re:At fucking last by rsmith-mac · 2014-07-23 10:10 · Score: 1

No, since Firefox is currently limiting the use of this plugin to WebRTC - which basically means it's not available for anything actual users want to do, such as watch html5 video.
Thankfully, that is incorrect. The OpenH.264 decoder can be used for HTML video elements. Though the last I heard Mozilla is still working on AAC audio licensing.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/10/30/video-interoperability-on-the-web-gets-a-boost-from-ciscos-h-264-codec/

Firefox already supports H.264 for the video element using platform codecs where they are available, but as noted in my last blog post on the topic, not all OSes ship with H.264 included. Provided we can get AAC audio decoders to match, using Cisco's OpenH264 binary modules allows us to extend support to other platforms and uses of H.264.
Re:At fucking last by Blaskowicz · 2014-07-23 19:57 · Score: 1

but do 240p, 144p and old 360p videos work? I do not know what codecs they use - and they're needeed, when 240p is the only version or the bandwith is low. And if these are re-encoded to next gen codecs, will there be CPU use increase for old systems.
About flash, Adobe is providing updates to version 11.2.x till 2017. I guess that's the deadline that I have to care about. If I can keep using flash + flashblock for the next two years I'll be more than fine with that

bad for standards by l2718 · 2014-07-23 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mozilla capitulating on the tag has serious implications for web standards. By including patent-encumbered code in the browser they take the rug from under those in the www foundation that argue for free web standards. Yes, some websites wanted to use H.264 for video encoding, but Mozilla shouldn't have abetted them.

Re:bad for standards by emblemparade · 2014-07-23 02:15 · Score: 2

This has nothing to do with the "tag" itself, which does not specify codecs. Yes, this is still a compromise, but many of us have been compromising for years on various aspects of freedom and openness. Choose your battles carefully and you can win the war: Mozilla has already achieved so much for the open web, and I'm confident the upward slope will continue.
Re:bad for standards by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm all for open standards and less patents, but H.264 videos and H.264 decoding hardware has been used everywhere for almost a decade now. Even if something free and open-source had been able to replace it, we're on the verge of switching to H.265 which is about twice as good as H.264.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:bad for standards by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · 2014-07-23 02:23 · Score: 2

It also still doesn't give anyone permission to generate their own h.264 video files (outside of webrtc "video-chatting" inside the browser) legally without paying someone a patent "poll-tax" for permission, so this is still "consume-only".
I'm also under the impression that there are,absurdly, potential patent-license issues with the .mp4 file format that h.264 video is most often stored in.
Finally, of course unless the usual obstructionist Apple and Microsoft ever implement opus codec support, this also doesn't give you the legal ability to include sound (mp3 or aac, typically, for h.264 videos) with the video. Hope everybody likes silent movies...

--
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Re:bad for standards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:32 · Score: 1

The battle now is to prevent H.265 from becoming a new de-facto standard, so the future does not get stuck with yet another patent encumbered format.
Xiph is working on Daala and Google on VP9, both attempting to replace H.265 -- with Daala, at the moment, looking like the most promising one as something that only can compete with H.265 but will perform better.
Re:bad for standards by Blaskowicz · 2014-07-23 03:14 · Score: 2

I'm sure the transition to H265 will be at least a decade long (do unreleased AMD and Intel CPUs even support it? I think not). H264 will stay for a long time. Even MP3 has been outdated for like 10+ years but still is massively used.
Re:bad for standards by diamondmagic · 2014-07-23 03:19 · Score: 1

Code implementing software patents can still be Free/Open Source Software. I mean, isn't that what x264 and VLC is? The un-FOSS-like restriction is one enforced by the government and patent trolls, not the software project.
Just because one country makes it illegal means you should, or even have to, spread it all around the world.
Mozilla isn't even offering people the option to enable h.264 in some alternative fashion (maybe a user could provide it themselves, maybe Firefox searches the OS or hardware for an h.264 implementation) - which they could legally do - no, they're just saying "Haha, screw you".

--
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Re:bad for standards by tlhIngan · 2014-07-23 04:05 · Score: 5, Informative

It also still doesn't give anyone permission to generate their own h.264 video files (outside of webrtc "video-chatting" inside the browser) legally without paying someone a patent "poll-tax" for permission, so this is still "consume-only".
I'm also under the impression that there are,absurdly, potential patent-license issues with the .mp4 file format that h.264 video is most often stored in.
Finally, of course unless the usual obstructionist Apple and Microsoft ever implement opus codec support, this also doesn't give you the legal ability to include sound (mp3 or aac, typically, for h.264 videos) with the video. Hope everybody likes silent movies...
If you have a camcorder, the license to create h.264 is present as part of the camcorder. This includes phones and everything else people submit to YouTube, for example.
The only constraint is that if you post content online, you cannot take payment on the content itself - i.e., you can put it online, you can put ads around it, but you cannot force someone to pay to view that content (commercial activity). So those videos on YouTube where you have to pay in order to view them come under a different license.
As for the Mp4 format being patented - it's RAND by Apple ages ago (MP4 is a subset of the QuickTime MOV format). If Apple's asserting any patents on the format, that is. But since people mass-license the h.264 patents through the MPEG-LA, that means any patents Apple has on MP4 are included in the license fee you pay to create or display the content.
Sound is licensed under a separate agreement - MP3 or AAC. Again, your typical MPEG-LA license for h.264 will probably include use licenses for AAC (most typical format) so you can have a soundtrack.
If not, there's always PCM as well - handled by the format just fine.
Re:bad for standards by smash · 2014-07-23 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the open source world releases something (unencumbered with the GPL - i.e., BSD licensed) with encoding and decoding tools that actually works as well or better than the closed alternative, in a timely manner then I'm sure people will use it.
It will never happen. Get used to it. There is far, far less complex stuff in the free desktop that has been broken for the past 20 years and still not fixed.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:bad for standards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 04:23 · Score: 1

Actually, if you are running a recent version of Firefox on a Linux system and you have gstreamer and the gstreamer ffmpeg plugin installed, then you can watch h.264 videos with no problem as Firefox supports gstreamer by default on Linux systems. The question now is whether Mozilla will change that default in order to give Cisco's implementation preference over what is already supported.
Re:bad for standards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 05:02 · Score: 0

They also recently decided to include DRM (EME), the interface has big lumpy icons instead of simple text menus (I believe you can change that but I don't have a recent version anymore), they included their own pdf viewer (ridiculous), a simple way to disable javascript is now hidden from regular users(a common choice many users make), etc, etc, etc.
I've switched to wget.
Re:bad for standards by petermgreen · 2014-07-23 05:39 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with the "tag" itself, which does not specify codecs.

IIRC at one stage it specified vorbis/theora as a baseline which every implementation should support but under pressure from apple and MS they took that out.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:bad for standards by tepples · 2014-07-23 06:46 · Score: 1

H.264 videos and H.264 decoding hardware has been used everywhere for almost a decade now.
Make it two decades and we'll talk.

we're on the verge of switching to H.265 which is about twice as good as H.264.
Not so fast though. When I made a similar point, people mentioned that video providers will continue because they have the choice of decoding H.265 in battery-gulping software or H.264 in battery-sipping hardware.
Re:bad for standards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 08:23 · Score: 0

ohh yeah let's not "encumber" the license with the requirement that these degenerate companies can't just use other people's contributed work and then lock it up and brand it as their own, which is what you're really talking about. Apple and all their zombies...
Re:bad for standards by higuita · 2014-07-23 22:38 · Score: 1

OGG Vorbis changed the license to BSD to try to push if to replace mp3 and other closed source formats. It is much better than mp3 is similar to most closed source audio format... yet most of the hardware and software out there still don't support it... all of then support the weaker and patented lock mp3 format.
Timing have always to be perfect to gain the critical mass, but with all groups trying to reach the same goal, it's very hard to change this
So no, the problem is not the license, it's the groups behind each format and their power. Apple with macosx/safari and iphones, MS with windows and iexplorer, and google with youtube have the power to allow or block a format. Apple and MS both have shares in the H264 patent owners, so they clearly don't want to support any other format.
google could try to battle others (and with a good probability of winning) by first downgrade H264 quality over open formats and warn users to use chrome and firefox (to pressure MS and Apple to support the open formats) or install some plugin to support it. As youtube is so big and important, it is the perfect weapon for this. Of course, W3C should also be pressured to finally define the (correct) video standard. Sadly google is playing both sides, it's not doing enough to counter H264 nor promoting open formats and that makes Apple and MS stronger in to blocking any other open formats and leave Mozilla alone, fighting for open standards.
Alone, the open source community will have a hard time trying to fight this closed source/patented formats, as there are always lack of resources to developer as fast as companies that their only work is that. With support from big companies, friendly to open source, like google, cisco, ibm, facebook, twitter, redhat, etc, things could be better, but those companies always have dual standards and not always really support the open standards

--
Higuita
Re:bad for standards by higuita · 2014-07-23 22:42 · Score: 1

Mozilla, as a US based company/foundation, can't directly add a patent code, but can add support to use external tools.
They already have done that for all major OS, but at least in android is a problem, as you can't install "other" tools to help firefox (for normal users, a rooted device you can always do other things)

--
Higuita
Re:bad for standards by smash · 2014-07-24 04:27 · Score: 1

Fact: If you do not allow commercial use of the code, your codec will fail. Open software no one uses that doesn't work with anything open software that can also be used commercially.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:bad for standards by smash · 2014-07-24 04:29 · Score: 1

OGG was too late. You don't just need to be open, you need to be solving problems that weren't solved years ago. MP3 was good enough. There are better replacements, but the hardware support hit the ground way before ogg or any of the alternatives were ready. People ripped all their stuff to mp3 way before the alternatives were ready.
The Vorbis/Vp8 guys don't need to be competing with h.264. That ship sailed years ago. They need to be beating the next generation of codec.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:bad for standards by higuita · 2014-07-24 11:44 · Score: 1

They are doing that, that is why the H264 battle is being abandoned, it's a waste of resources, mostly because the hardware support on phones and a W3C taking way too long to decide what format will be the standard (each day waiting is one more victory to H264).
So mozilla is using this solution as a good workaround, the closed source plugin can be controlled, the code reviewed, only the patent is still a issue. they will now try to setup the next battle in better ground.

--
Higuita

bad idea written all over it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 02:07 · Score: 0

Nothing should come direct from Cisco. We shouldn't be reliant on patent encumbered formats. It's that simple. No matter what the payoff is there is something fundamentally wrong about it. We're giving up control of our systems and that is just wrong. I shouldn't need a license to tinker with the code.

If this system is to be put in place despite this cry anything to be downloaded from Cisco directly should be compiled by Mozilla and signed by Mozilla for security reasons and the code should also be compilable such that it can be matched against the Cisco binary. Firefox should then check this executable upon downloading it.

Re:bad idea written all over it by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-23 02:25 · Score: 1

Isn't there patents on GIF and JPEG? And the web is full of images in those two formats anyway.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:bad idea written all over it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:07 · Score: 1

Gif patents (LZW-compression part of gif) expired on 20 June 2003 (Source). JPEG only had a patent troll go after it. (Source)

So what's the best way to do video on the web? by RogueWarrior65 · 2014-07-23 02:17 · Score: 2

Serious question: What's the best way to handle video on the web given a few requirements? First, the content needs to be hosted on the same site as the website. Why? Because sites like Youtube and Vimeo have control over it. They can unilaterally decide to take something down. They will also present related video. For someone trying to market product, you shouldn't make it easy for a prospective customer to find your competitors. Second, the video has to work on both Macs and PCs. Third, the video has to work on Internet Explorer as early as v.8 because too many users don't know any better.

Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by jonwil · 2014-07-23 03:21 · Score: 0

If you genuinely need to support Intercrap Exploder then your best option is Flash.
Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Serious question: What's the best way to handle video on the web given a few requirements? First, the content needs to be hosted on the same site as the website. Why? Because sites like Youtube and Vimeo have control over it. They can unilaterally decide to take something down. They will also present related video. For someone trying to market product, you shouldn't make it easy for a prospective customer to find your competitors. Second, the video has to work on both Macs and PCs. Third, the video has to work on Internet Explorer as early as v.8 because too many users don't know any better.
This sounds like a valid question for an 'ask Slashdot' article. You'll get more answers that way than you will here in a comment that might get modded 'Off topic'.
Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by smash · 2014-07-23 04:12 · Score: 1

video tag. for the IE8 users, give them alt text.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 05:12 · Score: 0

Have a look at video.js, it can handle multiple HTML5 video formats (ie webm, h264, theora) and implements them consistently across browsers. For browsers without support for a format it gracefully switches to a flash player. You can either encode your video to multiple formats to get native HTML5 video from as many browsers as possible, or encode to h264 for native Chrome and Safari play-back and flash based payback for IE and FF.
Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 06:08 · Score: 0

If you genuinely need to support Intercrap Exploder then your best option is Flash.
Have you even used Intercrap Exploder 11? It is less horrible than earlier versions.
Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by tepples · 2014-07-23 06:54 · Score: 1

To an extent it depends on what your video is of. I'd assume that users of Internet Explorer 8 at home have far less disposable income than users of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or new IE. Will they be paying for your video or for the product that your video advertises?
Re:So what's the best way to do video on the web? by RogueWarrior65 · 2014-07-23 10:11 · Score: 1

Not exactly a valid assumption. Government users tend to use IE primarily because they have to access other government sites that were built by the lowest bidder who often only work on Windows and only works on IE. Hell, while most of the world uses Acrobat for forms, the feds contracted with IBM to build some IT stuff and they're using this goofy holdover from their acquisition of Lotus.

cave in by mnt · 2014-07-23 02:22 · Score: 1

so mozilla gave up to make the web a better place?

Re:cave in by smash · 2014-07-23 04:13 · Score: 1

so mozilla gave up, to make the web a better place?
Fixed.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:cave in by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 06:05 · Score: 0

so mozilla gave up, to make the web a better place?
Fixed.
Nope.

Latest version by rossdee · 2014-07-23 02:30 · Score: 2

So thats whats gonna be in FF33, which is 2 versions from now.

FF31 has just been released AFAIK

So whats new (or broken) in FF31 - should I upgrade from FF30 ?

Re:Latest version by Derek+Pomery · 2014-07-23 03:19 · Score: 1

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/...
CSS3 variables I think has been getting the most attention.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
Re:Latest version by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:23 · Score: 0

I upgraded from firefox 30.0+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.3 to firefox 31.0+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1 this morning when it became available.
I tried playing some videos, and I immediately noticed horrible audio stuttering problems.
If version 32 doesn't come out quick enough, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the DEBs for firefox 30.0+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.3?
I forgot to copy them before I upgraded, and it sucks that Ubuntu doesn't keep them around on their servers.
One of these days I'll learn my lesson.
Re:Latest version by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:26 · Score: 0

Non-ESR versions get end-of-lifed very soon after a new release. Don't expect security fixes.
Re:Latest version by jenningsthecat · 2014-07-23 03:29 · Score: 1

FF31 has just been released AFAIK
So whats new (or broken) in FF31 - should I upgrade from FF30 ?
Unless you like Australis, you may want to 'upgrade' to Pale Moon 24.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Re:Latest version by Derek+Pomery · 2014-07-23 03:44 · Score: 1

Haven't noticed that personally. Have you tried killing off pulseaudio? I occasionally get weirdass audio problems with pulse that get fixed by that.
I guess a full on logging out and logging back in might do the trick too.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
Re:Latest version by Derek+Pomery · 2014-07-23 04:24 · Score: 1

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
Re:Latest version by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 04:24 · Score: 0

pcxFirefox 28 is probably a better choice for that; it's compiled with ICC with support for SSE3, too.
Re:Latest version by ravenlord_hun · 2014-07-23 04:31 · Score: 1

That's a very good solution... right until the plugin stops working because a future update broke it. Then you are left with a chrome-copycat.
Re:Latest version by Derek+Pomery · 2014-07-23 04:37 · Score: 1

Welp, then downgrade or whatever can be an option if-when that happens. For now, I'd prefer using the addon over dropping back that far.
Hell, there's always ESR to drag that window out even further if indeed the addon gets abandoned.
But given how many people (me included) are annoyed with Australis, I expect the addon will have a reasonable shelf life.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
Re:Latest version by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 05:05 · Score: 0

I guess if it gets bad enough I might try restarting pulseaudio daemon, but I have too much stuff open to consider logging out.
Re:Latest version by petermgreen · 2014-07-23 05:48 · Score: 1

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/p...
Source packages are on that page, follow the links to the builds for the binaries.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Latest version by ravenlord_hun · 2014-07-23 09:53 · Score: 1

Downgrading is a seriously bad idea - security patches are a must for browsers. ESR can save you for a while, but it's really just a time-delaying tactic. The v24 ESR for Firefox runs out of support just now, meaning even ESR users will get to "enjoy" Australis soon enough. As for the shelf life of the addon, that's really dependant on what the FF devs do; they are free to do changes that borks the mod. If they do something that makes the mod unable to recreate the addon bar, then there it is! No more addon bar for you. And THAT is what worries me, not the mod-dev calling it quits.

But whatever floats your boat! Me, I'd prefer a browser that doesn't need patching just because some manager decided to (intentionally) gimp it. So for now, Pale Moon it is... will see what the future brings.
Re:Latest version by Derek+Pomery · 2014-07-24 04:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's fair. But, I really do like the addons, and most of the time, the browser features.
So, I suspect if this addon got abandoned, I'd probably just put up with australis or whatever the flavour of the day at that point had become.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

Patent upgrade treadmill by tepples · 2014-07-23 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

And, it becomes just more BSD code when the patent expires in... what, a decade?

A decade from now, most major web video streams will be in H.265 (HEVC), and H.266 will be the Next Big Thing(tm). By the time the patents on one codec have run out, bandwidth constraints cause providers of non-free media to switch to a new freshly patented codec. Users end up stuck on a treadmill, from H.261 to MPEG-1 to MPEG-2 to H.263 family (Sorenson Spark, DivX, Xvid) to H.264 (AVC) and so on.

Re:Patent upgrade treadmill by petermgreen · 2014-07-23 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe maybe not. Once a format is deemed "good enough" it can stick around for a long time. See mp3, jpeg png etc. Furthermore bandwidth prices have dropped through the floor in recent years,

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Patent upgrade treadmill by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:18 · Score: 1

Bandwidth and codec efficiency are not the key issues. The reason why H.264 has won out over all other codecs is that it had enough industry support to get a hardware implementation in practically all mobile devices. Unless this hardware support goes away, H.264 will continue to be a viable alternative, even after its patents expire. There's only so much compression possible before you can no longer handle a lot of source material with inherently high entropy. Diminishing returns with increased coding complexity and the availability of a (then) free "good enough" alternative significantly reduce the attractiveness of newer standards. Is a compression factor of 2 compared to a free codec worth the license trouble and the additional development? What matters is that the existing standard doesn't empty the battery where a new codec wouldn't. With hardware support for H.264 on every device and spotty support for any newer codec, that should limit the licensing shenanigans anyone can pull with a newer standard. For comparison see MP3 vs AAC.
Re:Patent upgrade treadmill by tepples · 2014-07-23 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Once a format is deemed "good enough" it can stick around for a long time.

True, if it is impractical to deploy a new codec in the field alongside the existing codecs, a first mover will win. This is why U.S. OTA digital television is stuck on DVD/SVCD era codecs, but some countries whose digital transition happened later use H.264.

Furthermore bandwidth prices have dropped through the floor in recent years
Long haul yes, last mile no. Satellite and cellular ISPs tend to charge on the order of $10 per GB. Even wired home ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon have been practicing "congestion by choice", refusing to peer with L3.
Re:Patent upgrade treadmill by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-07-23 04:24 · Score: 1

By the time the patents on one codec have run out, bandwidth constraints cause providers of non-free media to switch to a new freshly patented codec
That seems silly.
Bandwidth is one of those commodities (like processor cycles) that gets cheaper as time marches on. Bandwidth now is easily a couple of orders of magnitude higher than a decade ago (and moving towards gigabit), and that was several orders of magnitude higher than the decade before that.
Further, its a cost center now. If you could halve Netflix's bandwidth costs, you'd be quite wealthy.
The real limits are a) on the decoding side: How much processor power, RAM, etc. does it take to create an image, and b) the quality of the decompressed video, esp. against theoretical limits

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Patent upgrade treadmill by evilviper · 2014-07-23 06:37 · Score: 1

if it is impractical to deploy a new codec in the field alongside the existing codecs, a first mover will win. This is why U.S. OTA digital television is stuck on DVD/SVCD era codecs, but some countries whose digital transition happened later use H.264.
It's not true that H.264 is significantly better than MPEG-2 video, when used at high bit rates as in HDTV. Every video codec developed since MPEG-2, and every audio codec developed since MPEG-1 Layer II, has been focused on low-bit rate video that needs to look good, but doesn't need to actually be identical to the original.
This is because the first-generation audio and video codecs already got quite close to the theoretical limits of perceptual entropy, so there is NO room to double the efficiency while still making it indistinguishable from the uncompressed original. There's still tons of headroom, however, to make something low bit rate that just looks "good" and comprehensible without obvious distracting artifacts.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Patent upgrade treadmill by Pentium100 · 2014-07-23 07:40 · Score: 1

Long haul yes, last mile no.

Depends on where you live. I get 500mbps* symmetric connection today, for about the same price I used to get a 4mbps/768kbps connection 4 years ago and a 1mbps/128kbps connection 8 years ago.
*They throttle to down to 80-90mbps a few hours per day (during peak), but I get full 500mbps in other times, with no cap whatsoever, the average bandwidth is about 300mbps, which is good enough for me.

ActiveX again. by mar.kolya · 2014-07-23 02:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, at least on Linux this 'thing' doesn't come packaged with the browser in a package. Instead browser DOWNLOADS this crap from the net. ActiveX, anyone?

Very-very-very disappointing. Looks like Mozilla have forgotten what their mission was behind all those gay-rights fights.

Re:ActiveX again. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:47 · Score: 1

If you'd bothered to read up on it, you'd know better than to jerk your knee like this. Not only is it an option, not only are you able to block it, not only are they working hard to make it easier to verify yourself which code has been compiled into a given binary, but they're also working to limit what these plugins truly do - going so far as to sandbox them entirely from access to your system. Stop trying to make false equivalencies. Next you'll be telling me that the standard NPAPI is ActiveX, and a clearly safer and superior solution to this.
Re:ActiveX again. by mar.kolya · 2014-07-23 13:27 · Score: 1

With NPAPI browser doesn't download executable crap without permission. But Firefox now does. And that is the problem.
Before all code that I had running on my machine came from my Linux distribution of choice. _I_ had a choice what to install and whom to trust. Now I'm being forced to trust that Mozilla compiles stuff without NSA inserts. And that NSA doesn't insert things into that stuff while it is being delivered to me. And with all due respect Mozilla's track record in terms of security is far from perfect.
Yes, I'm able to block it but it is still installed by default. Even IE asked before it downloaded and run flash plugin.
And we all know how well 'sand boxing' worked before, so not much hope here either. Once 'stuff' gets run on your CPU you are pretty much screwed.
And all this is also covered with unknown number of patents - that is truly open Internet, yes, right.

Australis killed Firefox by EzInKy · 2014-07-23 02:50 · Score: 1

Much as I hate to admit it, what I see is what I get. Kill australis and save Firefox!

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Re:Australis killed Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 04:32 · Score: 0

Here's an idea: why not do something instead of bitching and moaning? Let Mozilla work on what they want to - a core browser we can extend by our own whims. Create on a skin of your own, or use someone else's hard work like Pale Moon's. Mozilla are not there to do cater to everyone's precise whims, and that mentality is what led to its actual downfall when Chrome came out. If the best you can do is badmouth Firefox, then all you're doing is killing Firefox. Who wants to use a browser that even the fans hate? And when Firefox finally dies, so too will go all the third-party browsers based on Gecko, and then you'll have something to REALLY bitch and moan about. Use your brain sometime.
Re:Australis killed Firefox by drinkypoo · 2014-07-23 08:01 · Score: 1

Mozilla are not there to do cater to everyone's precise whims,

No, they're there to cater to a couple of UI designers' whims, which is how we got an interface that none of the users wanted.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Australis killed Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 15:49 · Score: 0

If you insist that nobody wanted it, then how did it get made? You had years to whip the community into a fervor and displace the UX team so they didn't create this, but despite all the bluster I keep hearing nobody actually did. They just cried in a bug post or two, and then gave up. And now they're throwing a collective hissy-fit and trying to ruin Firefox's reputation entirely, so even the knock-offs like Pale Moon will die with it.
Face it, you can insist all you want that you're right, and nobody wanted this, and that it was the fault of a couple of idiots, but if that's the case then everyone yelling about this now are the real idiots for letting it happen. I remember criticizing it heavily from day one, until it was something that I could customize. And then I did so, and helped make addons and figure out how to skin it. What the hell have you done, except go on the equivalent of a quiet smear campaign?
Re:Australis killed Firefox by drinkypoo · 2014-07-23 15:55 · Score: 1

Face it, you can insist all you want that you're right, and nobody wanted this, and that it was the fault of a couple of idiots, but if that's the case then everyone yelling about this now are the real idiots for letting it happen.

Everything you said is stupid, but you're also a coward so shock, amazement. I didn't hear about it until it was happening, and I shouldn't have to ride herd on the devs to make sure they don't inexplicably waste a bunch of screen real estate and castrate the interface. It should be obvious that's a stupid idea.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Australis killed Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 16:02 · Score: 0

Sure, sure. If you're so damn clever then you should have known about this. The fact that you didn't just means you weren't paying attention. This isn't Douglas Adams. Mozilla has been talking about Australis for nearly 6 years, and the stink over Australis became a fervor almost a year ago in most circles. If you STILL didn't hear about it, then you only have yourself to blame.
Moreover, while I applaud the circlejerkers here who ALL did nothing and ALL didn't know about Australis and still just want to blame everyone else, it's still circlejerking. Enjoy Firefox while it lasts. With you morons constantly bitching about the smallest of details while being unwilling to raise a finger to help (let alone know what Mozilla is doing with Firefox) I'm not surprised that the best you can do is grumble about your own interests and call others names, without being able to take the heat yourselves.
Re:Australis killed Firefox by drinkypoo · 2014-07-23 16:08 · Score: 1

The fact that you didn't just means you weren't paying attention.

That's what I said. I wasn't paying attention, because I shouldn't have to pay attention to make sure they don't do something staggeringly stupid.

Enjoy Firefox while it lasts.
I enjoy it a lot less now with this buggy-ass patch to their hubristic fuckup.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Australis killed Firefox by ravenlord_hun · 2014-07-24 05:02 · Score: 1

the stink over Australis became a fervor almost a year ago in most circles
That. And people also moaned about the chrome-ness and especially the lack of add-on bar since I can recall. What did that feedback accomplish? Exactly nothing. Australis got pushed through anyway, because UI uniformity with the 5" smartphones is the highest priority for a desktop browser everyone uses on 24" displays.

So what should have the users done? Everyone forks Firefox and makes their own variant without the stupid changes?

In an imperfect world... by westlake · 2014-07-23 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, some websites wanted to use H.264 for video encoding, but Mozilla shouldn't have abetted them.

H.264 is here.

HEVC not far down the road.

The geek sees everything in terms of the "open" web.

But there is more to digital video than video distribution through the web.

Which is why the mainstream commercial codecs dominate here.

Why hardware and software support for these codecs are baked into the smartphone, tablet, PC, graphics card, HDTV, video game console, Blu-ray player. The prosumer HD camcorder, medical and industrial video systems and so on, endlessly.

Re:In an imperfect world... by evilviper · 2014-07-23 06:24 · Score: 1

The geek sees everything in terms of the "open" web.
But there is more to digital video than video distribution through the web.
The "distribution" is orthogonal to the codec being used. Most of the things that make a good "digital video" codec for the "web", also make it exceptionally good for physical media, dedicated hardware, etc., etc.

Which is why the mainstream commercial codecs dominate here.
No, MPEG codecs dominate, because they had NO open competitors, until *just now*.
VP3 was okay at the time, but it wasn't support by anything, Theora went nowhere for a DECADE and was awful compared to contemporary codecs, by the time they finalized their not-quite-VP3 format, and started pushing for adoption.
VP8 was a good codec, but it didn't get open sourced until LONG after H.264 had an overwhelmingly dominant installed base. The MPEG-LA also did their dammedest to threaten to sue anyone who used it, but now such challenges have been conclusively settled in court.
It's only just now, this year, that VP9 is being released for unencumbered use right about the same time as HEVC/H.265 came out. So it's only now that we'll see if the market is ready, willing, and able to adopt open formats.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:In an imperfect world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 09:14 · Score: 0

op: "you web nerds just don't understand how *real* business works..."
you have stockholm syndrome.
not so coincidentally, this is a list of products that the consumers have no control over whatsoever and are in general "plants" or "moles" by and for the enemies of humanity, so it would be logical that the vidoe codec in use is an insidious infection as well.
the people paid for the devices but they have no source code and the only way in which the company pays any attention to the customer is by trying to determine how best to exploit their ignorance and weaknesses. of course, this is to be expected as this is the nature of these predators and slave traders. they're too dumb and greedy to modernize their business model.
op: "The geek sees everything in terms of the "open" web."
uhhhh, you're freakin' blind! all these local devices you think are so important are already starting to become nothing more than sensors, little digital rats for the "internet of things". Why do you think we think source is so important? because jackass, skynet is coming regardless, the only thing is whether we have the source code(ultimate control) or not! How many sci fi movies do "insiders" have to make before it gets in your thick morlock scull?

Blindly trusting Cisco? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:19 · Score: 0

So, I remember back when this was originally announced that there was a large pushback against firefox fetching a binary blob compiled by Cisco, as there was no way to know if it was built from the published OpenH264 source code. These concerns were answered by mozilla and cisco with hand-waving answers that they would work on reproducible builds. Mike Perry from mozilla had this to say:
"In fact, if there is any component of Firefox that should have reproducible builds as a hard requirement, this seems like candidate 0."

So, here we are in 2014, mozilla is implementing the binary blob download, and... where are the reproducible builds?

Looking at the issue tracker, I found this:
https://github.com/cisco/openh264/issues/893
"Supporting replicatable builds is still on our to-do list."

That's great guys. So the "hard requirement" is no longer there I guess. And we should all just shut up and trust the benevolent cisco.

Re:Blindly trusting Cisco? by smash · 2014-07-23 04:16 · Score: 2

If you don't trust Cisco you better get off the internet. Seriously, if you're worried about this, a binary blob running in your web browser is the least of your problems. There's a very good chance that the network hardware at your ISP is Cisco. If it's not, it will likely be Juniper.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

YouTube never implemented Theora by tepples · 2014-07-23 03:23 · Score: 1

Is a compression factor of 2 compared to a free codec worth the license trouble and the additional development?

Yes. This is why YouTube never implemented Theora, waiting until VP8 (which roughly compares to AVC baseline) before adding any free codecs.

What matters is that the existing standard doesn't empty the battery where a new codec wouldn't.

Why wouldn't the new codec be GPGPU-accelerated too?

Re:YouTube never implemented Theora by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 03:50 · Score: 0

We're not comparing two unaccelerated codecs with similar licenses. All else equal, the more efficient codec is of course preferable. But if you compare hardware accelerated H.264, then free, to a new codec which compresses twice as much but requires patent licenses and doesn't have ubiquitous hardware support (yet), the new codec doesn't look attractive. Bandwidth is not that scarce.
GPGPU acceleration is much less power efficient than dedicated codec hardware. Dedicated codec hardware is at least partly codec specific. Newer codecs typically include the building blocks of older codecs, but not vice versa. Even if a codec doesn't need additional hardware blocks and could theoretically be implemented by updating DSP firmware, manufacturers don't do this, because the licensing costs were not included in the price of the sold hardware. In consequence, a new codec necessarily requires at least two years for competitive market penetration (because phones are replaced on about a two year schedule).
Re:YouTube never implemented Theora by tepples · 2014-07-23 04:27 · Score: 1

Bandwidth is not that scarce.
It is when you're trying to send 2160p video to subscribers behind local monopoly ISPs that routinely practice metering, congestion by choice, or both.
Re:YouTube never implemented Theora by BitZtream · 2014-07-23 09:55 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't the new codec be GPGPU-accelerated too?
GPGPU acceleration doesn't really save battery in most cases as there aren't a whole lot of low power GPUs out there.
Dedicated hardware with just enough circuitry to perform a specific task will when over anything with GP attached to it.
GPGPU is for high performance computing, not low power computing.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Flash support by Eravnrekaree · 2014-07-23 03:38 · Score: 1

I know some will mock this, but there is a heck of a lot of Flash content out there, and Firefox really should work with Adobe for an unloadable plugin for getting an up to date Flash player on all platforms. There is really far too much Flash content out there to ignore this need. Make it something that can be disabled, and unloaded as a plugin, sure. If you don't want it, you won't have to have it loaded, so it keeps everyone happy. I think that getting Ogg support into the browser and other open codecs will help us transition away from the Flash over time, which is something i support, especially with Google doing flash-free on most of its new Youtube content, for instance. But there is a lot of existing Flash content out there and its not going away any time soon, so we need the capability to view it.

Re:Flash support by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 05:32 · Score: 0

They tried. Adobe doesn't care. They only worked with Google to create a new API for plugins, just as the world is transitioning away from them. So Mozilla is creating an HTML5 version of Flash called Shumway, while they try to frantically keep up with Google's increasingly-self-serving whims with HTML5 video.
Re:Flash support by higuita · 2014-07-23 22:56 · Score: 1

mozilla have a project (can't recall its name, sorry) to play most flash without plugin, using html5 and javascript. it can already play many of the flash out there, but not yet the flash videos and more complex flash games

--
Higuita

Hurry up by bhlowe · 2014-07-23 04:04 · Score: 1

This split between supported formats on various browsers is ridiculous. Embed it into the next FireFox so that video tags support H.264. Make it something you can disable if you're paranoid. There will be plenty of time to examine it and make sure there isn't a back door (which would be a stupid thing for Cisco to attempt!)

mpeg4, with link too if embedded by raymorris · 2014-07-23 04:20 · Score: 1

Virtually all of the popular file formats for video are essentially containers that have mpeg4 video inside. Therefore, essentially any player can play mpeg4. The difference is which package files they can open, so just use a plain .mpg file rather than a proprietary package like .wmv.

If you want to embed the video that's fine, but also provide a link to the mpeg file itself. A plain link to a mpg file is like a plain link to an html page - it will work for anyone.

1 Gbit per second vs. 5 GB per month by tepples · 2014-07-23 04:29 · Score: 1

Bandwidth now is easily a couple of orders of magnitude higher than a decade ago (and moving towards gigabit)

Gigabit per second just means you blow through a month of last-mile data in 40 seconds.

As will Flash moving to HTML5 instead of a plugin by raymorris · 2014-07-23 04:32 · Score: 1

>I think that getting Ogg support into the browser and other open codecs will help us transition away from the Flash over time,

Also, Flash Cc, the authoring tool, can now output HTML5 rather than SWF, so all the existing Flash projects can be recompiled to no longer require the plugin. Support isn't 100% yet, but that's the direction Adobe is going. The programming language within Flash has always been a dialect of JavaScript/Emacscript, so it is pretty simple for Adobe to start using the browser's JavaScript engine instead of one provided by Flash. Other than a cross-browser JavaScript engine, the other thing provided by the plugin is a graphics API. Now that the canvas element, there's no need for the plugin.

archival H.264 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 04:48 · Score: 0

And, it becomes just more BSD code when the patent expires in... what, a decade?

A decade from now, most major web video streams will be in H.265 (HEVC), and H.266 will be the Next Big Thing(tm).

True, but if you save all your files in H.264, you are guaranteed an archival data format that can be read by software that won't suddenly stop working.

We have to remember to preserve the past in addition to planning for the future.

Archiving your own or someone else's? by tepples · 2014-07-23 05:01 · Score: 1

True, but if you save all your files in H.264, you are guaranteed an archival data format that can be read by software that won't suddenly stop working.

If you are archiving a video that you produced, what's the big advantage of H.264 over VP8? VP8 is rate-distortion comparable to H.264 baseline, and VP8 is free today. An archival copy needs to be read by software, not necessarily read by specialized hardware in a battery-constrained device.

If you are archiving a video that someone else produced, most streaming video providers have a policy of implementing technical measures to prevent just that, backed by national anticircumvention legislation.

Re:Archiving your own or someone else's? by Pentium100 · 2014-07-23 07:49 · Score: 1

If you are archiving a video that you produced, what's the big advantage of H.264 over VP8?

Being able to play it on more devices.
Transcoding isn't fun or fast. I'd rather have my files in such a format that I can actually use instead of some format that I would need to convert before being able to play.
After all, my archived analog media does not need any conversion - I can just grab and play a VHS tape or a record.
Also, my country does not have software patents, so h.264 is (legally) free to me.

Unlike copyrights, patents expire. by tepples · 2014-07-23 06:50 · Score: 1

Ever wondered what the "89" in GIF89a stands for? It stands for 1989. Unlike copyrights, patents encumber all implementations of a method, even those resulting from independent reinvention. To make up for this, patents last only 20 years, not 95 like a copyright.

Licensed encoder for video editor by tepples · 2014-07-23 06:52 · Score: 1

If you have a camcorder, the license to create h.264 is present as part of the camcorder. This includes phones and everything else people submit to YouTube, for example.

It doesn't include video game footage or anything else that's edited because as I understand it, the video editing software needs to have its own licensed encoder.

Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 07:24 · Score: 0

Wasn't it just Firefox 31 yesterday?!

Emigrating isn't always practical by tepples · 2014-07-23 09:24 · Score: 1

Transcoding isn't fun or fast. I'd rather have my files in such a format that I can actually use instead of some format that I would need to convert before being able to play.

If you archive a 4K video, you need to scale it down anyway before it'll play efficiently on a handheld device, no matter what codecs that device accepts. Besides, if you produced video, you may want to archive the source footage in its original format and a non-destructive edit decision list.

Also, my country does not have software patents, so h.264 is (legally) free to me.

But does it have anticircumvention legislation (DMCA, EUCD, etc.)? Besides, the process of finding a country with acceptable living conditions and visa requirements, finding an employer to sponsor a work visa, and finally moving one's family isn't practical for everyone, I understand.

Re:Emigrating isn't always practical by Pentium100 · 2014-07-23 15:00 · Score: 1

If you archive a 4K video
But for SD or HD, I can keep the files in playable format.

Besides, if you produced video, you may want to archive the source footage in its original format and a non-destructive edit decision list.
That and a format that can be played immediately. I do not want to re-edit the file every time I want to watch it :).

But does it have anticircumvention legislation (DMCA, EUCD, etc.)?
Most likely (it is part of the EU), not that anybody cares to enforce any of this. Microsoft tried to sue some users (or rather, told the police about them) of our local BitTorrent tracker for downloading Windows - they got nothing (because the proof - a screenshot from uTorrent was dismissed since uTorrent is not certified as an evidence gathering tool - like, say, a police radar).

Still depends on what the video is of by tepples · 2014-07-23 10:43 · Score: 1

sites that were built by the lowest bidder who often only work on Windows and only works on IE

All supported Windows desktop operating systems can run IE 9 or later. Besides, whether and why government employees on government equipment and government time would be watching your video still depends on what the video is of. It might be better in a specific case to download the video to watch in a native, non-web application, or to have the IT department authorize installation of a second browser for "general interest" web sites.

NPAPI by brunes69 · 2014-07-23 13:13 · Score: 1

Actually, Firefox has one huge advantage over Chrome - their continued support of NPAPI. Chrome dropped NPAPI as of May, and along with it support for Java plugins. Like them or not, Java plugins are used in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of huge enterprises for internal applications. By dropping NPAPI support, Chrome basically gave a big middle finger to all these enterprises.

I work for one of these huge companies. A bunch of our internal systems requires the use of Java plugins via NPAPI - and there is no way they are going to spend hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars to replace all of these internal applications, when Chrome was never an officially supported browser in the first place.

Since Chrome dropped NPAPI, I can no longer use any of these applications in it, so I am now back to Firefox for them. And if I am going to run Firefox for some things, I am going to run it for everything, because I frankly don't have the time or patience to run deal with two web browsers every day.

Portability by manu0601 · 2014-07-23 13:50 · Score: 1

That seems to kill Firefox portability. For what CPU is the Cisco binary blog available? And does it depends on system-specific libraries or system calls?

restarting pulseaudio fixed the stuttering problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 19:46 · Score: 0

Thanks for the tip of restarting pulseaudio! I typed:

pulseaudio -k

in a terminal and then restarted firefox. The stuttering problems are gone now! :D

(To clarify for others reading this, just restarting firefox had no effect.)

Re:As will Flash moving to HTML5 instead of a plug by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-23 23:43 · Score: 0

The programming language within Flash has always been a dialect of JavaScript/Emacscript

Wrong.
ActionScript v1 and v2 were NOT a dialect of ECMAscript. Not even close.

confusing ActionScript version with Flash player? by raymorris · 2014-07-24 00:36 · Score: 1

Are you perhaps confusing ActionScript version numbers vs Flash Player version numbers? ActionScript was introduced in Flash 5. Adobe says they based ActionScript 1.0 on Emacscript. Of course, the first version wasn't complete. It was based on Emacscript, though, according to the people who wrote the friggin language.

ECMA script, third edition by raymorris · 2014-07-24 00:57 · Score: 1

Here's the third edition standard for ECMA script. Please point out any way that ActionScript 2.0 doesn't comply with the standard aside from the comparison operator.

http://www.ecma-international....

Re:restarting pulseaudio fixed the stuttering prob by Derek+Pomery · 2014-07-24 01:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, unsurprising that restarting Firefox had no effect. Stuttering seems to be pulseaudio thrashing wildly in its buffers. I've had it happen with our game too. Can also leave application windows hanging as they wait for audio closes.
It is possible that just pulseaudio -k might have been enough without the restart, even.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

bad for standards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-24 02:14 · Score: 0

"some sites want to use H.264..."? How about the vast majority of content creators want to be able to use a single video file?

The truth is that Ogg/Theora/WebM lost this battle a long time ago. H.264 gives great quality, there are lots of tools that support encoding, and very importantly, hardware decoding support exists on all the major mobile chipsets. Hardware decoding is hugely important for mobile as it has less of an impact on power consumption that having to decode in software.

Encoding tools are less well developed for the "ideologically pure" alternatives (the main one I used for WebM is Miro, and that seems to have a single quality setting), and there is no hardware decoding support.

The consequence of H.264 support covering Safari, IE and Chrome but not Firefox means that I always have to create, upload and keep track of twice as many video assets as I want to. In fact, what many sites resort to is complex JS+Flash shims that use plain old video tag + H.264 assets for the majority of browsers, and a Flash player to show the same H.264 asset to Firefox and legacy browsers. Hell, if FF was smart enough to ignore the video tag if there was no supported asset then it wouldn't be so bad, but it tries to use the video tag and then complains about the mime-type.

As developers and open source advocates, you may not care about having to support multiple assets for the same content, but the danger is that more and more people will not care about FF. Its ironic that Firefox announced support for HTML5 DRM before it announced this.

Re:As will Flash moving to HTML5 instead of a plug by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-24 08:19 · Score: 0

The programming language within Flash has always been a dialect of JavaScript/Emacscript, so it is pretty simple for Adobe to start using the browser's JavaScript engine instead of one provided by Flash.

Erm. ActionScript 3 is based on EcmaScript 5, which was never used in browsers.
ActionScript has strong types and classes (but supports dynamic objects with weak typing), which doesn't compare at all to the weakly typed, prototype based Ecmascipt you find in browsers.
ActionScript actually looks more like Java than like JavaScript.
Maybe HTML5+Ecmascript can replace some simple Flash contents, but there is currently no replacement for Flex.
The simple recompile you talk about doesn't exist. It only works for new content created in Flassh Cc.

Crime scene photos by tepples · 2014-07-26 02:24 · Score: 1

screenshot from uTorrent was dismissed since uTorrent is not certified as an evidence gathering tool - like, say, a police radar

Common cameras aren't "certified as an evidence gathering tool" either. Do courts likewise reject all photos of a violent crime scene that aren't taken with a "certified" camera? The commodity home movie camera Abraham Zapruder was using wasn't "certified", but his and other films provided evidence of how Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy. And did any copyright owner decide to follow up on this dismissal by modifying one of the free software BitTorrent clients to get it "certified as an evidence gathering tool"?

Re:Crime scene photos by Pentium100 · 2014-07-26 08:44 · Score: 1

I think (IANAL) that a camera does not need to be certified because the camera cannot take a false photo - either the photo is out of focus or otherwise unusable, or it is properly taken and you can see what is in it. The camera cannot change, say, the face of the suspect. Same for a tape (or digital) recorder - it cannot alter the conversation recorded, so if it's understandable, it can be used. Compare that to a police radar - that needs to be certified because it can display a false speed. Or a breathalyzer - it can be inaccurate - that is usually good enough for a home one - even if it says that I am just below the limit I am not going to drive anyway, but I do not want to be fined because the police breathalyzer was out of calibration.
Software can show anything you want. I can make a screenshot of uTorrent showing your IP even with the regular version (and photoshop) or a modified version. Or it can just show your IP anyway. How do we know it's the truth?

And did any copyright owner decide to follow up on this dismissal by modifying one of the free software BitTorrent clients to get it "certified as an evidence gathering tool"?
No. The tracker is still operational and given how publicized the initial trial was (the anti-piracy agency wanted to make an example) if it succeeded, it would be even more publicized. Also, IIRC another point against the anti-piracy group was that you have to accept the EULA only when installing Windows - downloading it you do not see nor need to accept any agreement forbidding you from downloading or uploading the software.
And recently the loudest anti-piracy person (the manager of the agency) was caught with illegal drugs (so, I guess drugs are okay, but movies aren't in his opinion).

In-camera special effects by tepples · 2014-07-26 12:00 · Score: 1

The camera cannot change, say, the face of the suspect.

Then perhaps you aren't aware of "fake smile" or "big eyes" gimmick effects in some modern digital cameras.

Same for a tape (or digital) recorder - it cannot alter the conversation recorded

Mind explaining what's on that 18 1/2 minute gap of the Watergate tapes? Now shorten the concept to silencing individual words, and then look at how YouTube Poop artists have perfected the art of sentence mixing.

And recently the loudest anti-piracy person (the manager of the agency) was caught with illegal drugs

What's the reason for banning drugs in the first place, other than racism?

Re:In-camera special effects by Pentium100 · 2014-07-26 12:27 · Score: 1

What's the reason for banning drugs in the first place, other than racism?
What racism?

Mind explaining what's on that 18 1/2 minute gap of the Watergate tapes? Now shorten the concept to silencing individual words, and then look at how YouTube Poop artists have perfected the art of sentence mixing.
That was manipulation by a human during or after the recording. There is no way to prevent it. However, the tape recorder itself cannot be so out of cal that it would alter words. Like, say a radar that can show a wrong number.

Then perhaps you aren't aware of "fake smile" or "big eyes" gimmick effects in some modern digital cameras.
Actually, no. I do not have a camera with these functions and I usually do not look for gimmicks in a camera. But if the change is big, I guess the defense could argue that the photo was altered.
But, let's say that I have a dashcam and just filmed somebody speeding. It would most likely not count as evidence since 1) the speedometer on my car (or the dashcam) can be wrong and the recording could have been sped up. If I record him running a red light, OTOH, it would count as evidence unless the defense proves that this was CGI or whatever.
A guy successfully avoided a speeding ticket in court because the calibration on the radar was expired by a couple of days.
Re:In-camera special effects by tepples · 2014-07-26 14:09 · Score: 1

What's the reason for banning drugs in the first place, other than racism?
What racism?
Cocaine was seem as a "black" drug, marijuana was "Latino", and opium was "Chinese". (source)

That was manipulation by a human during or after the recording.
Exactly my point: recordings can be altered. So what would be good evidence that at least one machine on a particular ISP subscriber's home network was connected to a swarm?

If I record him running a red light, OTOH, it would count as evidence unless the defense proves that this was CGI or whatever.
The following does not relate to evidence qualification, but is an out of calibration signal set itself a defense to running a red light? If not, what is someone stuck at a red light for half an hour supposed to do?
Re:In-camera special effects by Pentium100 · 2014-07-26 14:35 · Score: 1

Cocaine was seem as a "black" drug, marijuana was "Latino", and opium was "Chinese".
My country is almost completely white. Usually the people with darkest skin around here are Jews (more common) or Muslims (less common). There are a few black people living here, but they are probably less than 1%. If I see a black person I usually think he's a tourist or on a business trip.

So what would be good evidence that at least one machine on a particular ISP subscriber's home network was connected to a swarm?
Well, somebody could produce a torrent app that signs the records and is verified to produce correct records. It that gets the app certified for evidence gathering, the police could use it to, well, gather evidence. It is usually assumed that a police officer would not intentionally alter the records.

If not, what is someone stuck at a red light for half an hour supposed to do?
I do not recall a rule that a red light can be ignored after x minutes, though I suppose it could be used as defense provided the light was actually broken (there should be repair records).
Re:In-camera special effects by tepples · 2014-07-27 02:14 · Score: 1

So is someone supposed to drive in reverse for a whole block? Or, on a one-way street, abandon the vehicle and have it towed?
Re:In-camera special effects by Pentium100 · 2014-07-27 02:49 · Score: 1

I don't know. I guess if the police pulled me over I could explain that either 1) I waited at the light for 10 minutes so it must be broken (hopefully they will check it) or 2) I saw multiple other drivers ignore it so the light is most likely broken or if it;s not, then why I was the only one who was stopped?

Slashdot Mirror

Firefox 33 Integrates Cisco's OpenH264

194 comments