Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 33 Integrates Cisco's OpenH264
NotInHere (3654617) writes As promised, version 33 of the Firefox browser will fetch the OpenH264 module from Cisco, which enables Firefox to decode and encode H.264 video, for both the <video> tag and WebRTC, which has a codec war on this matter. The module won't be a traditional NPAPI plugin, but a so-called Gecko Media Plugin (GMP), Mozilla's answer to the disliked Pepper API. Firefox had no cross-platform support for H.264 before.
Note that only the particular copy of the implementation built and blessed by Cisco is licensed to use the h.264 patents.
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.
I always wanted a backdoor in my browser.
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.
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.
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.
Seems like a problem with a simple solution: Cisco needs to publish their build procedure.
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.
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.
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.
how about "-1 whoosh"?
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water