First, iPhone's market share isn't 2%. You're off by more than an order of magnitude.
Second, Apple tends to release products that defines or redefine a market. The Apple I/II defined the PC. The Mac redefined the PC. The PowerBook defined the notebook. The iPod redefined the PMP. The iPhone redefined the smart phone. Now the iPad is going to redefined the tablet computer.
And every time Apple did this there were people who complained about the new product definition. They all said these things were toys or were underpowered or blah, blah, blah. Dvorak famously stated that the Mac was doomed because he didn't think anyone would ever want to use a mouse. The only product in that list that didn't have a gigantic chorus of naysayers was the iPhone (and even then, there were complaints).
Now, of course, there were portable computers before the PowerBook, there were GUIs (in labs) before the Mac/Lisa. There was *a* PC before the Apple I (the Altair 8800, which can only *barely* be called a PC). There were smartphones before the iPhone and PMPs before the iPod.
And today, there have been tablet computers before the iPad.
So, why the fuss? First, looking at Apple's history, the iPad fits in quite well. There are even the naysayers who are decrying its lack of features or its method of interaction. Of course, time will tell who is right, but I highly suspect that in a few years time, all small tablets will be iPads, the same way all PCs today are Macs and all smartphones (except Blackberry) are iPhones. Specifically, in the sense that there will be a clear pre-iPad and post-iPad market, and the majority of devices post-iPad will more closely resemble the iPad than they will resemble the tablet designs of the past.
Exactly, I want a device that lasts for days either on or in a sleep that takes 3 seconds to wake from
The iPad *does* run for days with the screen locked. The display is really the only thing that limits the battery to 10 hours[*] of video.
[*] Claimed by Apple, of course, so we'll see how it pans out in practice. Apple's battery claims do tend to be far more honest than the rest of the industry, though, so even if it's not 10, it'll be at least something like 8 or so.
A decent (matte) LCD that doesn't need to be turned up to searing levels in order to be readable outside
There exists no consumer LCD device that can attain "searing levels" outside. Unless you mean outside on a moonless, overcast night in the wilderness.
All LCDs are way dimmer than the sun. They are not going to cause eyestrain from the brightness, unless it's for the lack of it.
Also, matte LCDs are crap outdoors because of the way they scatter the light. It's the same idea as why you can't see stars in the daytime. With glossy LCDs, you can at least turn or shade them.
I just saw a video on Channel 9 showing that the Hard Rock Cafe is using Microsoft Surface and other touchscreen devices in a few of their restaurants.
Oh, I'm well aware that they exist, but they are still little more than novelties, which is exactly the point I'm getting at.
While MS is announcing products that aren't ready, in controlled demos that are very impressive, Apple and Google ship actual products that people actually use.
Considering the device was only release about 2 years ago and has such a large price tag I am still impressed with what they have done.
It's hardly impressive that there are a handful of places using Surface. Even if Surface totally sucked (which it doesn't, it only half-sucks. It's a cool technology, but with extremely limited practical use), MS would be able to get a few high profile installations.
But more specifically to my point, Surface was announced to counter the iPhone. It was a controlled tech demo, which was really impressive, but years later we just have a few novelty installations.
Now, look at the Bing Maps demo. While some of the features are a bit better than Google Maps, it's the camera overlay that is the headliner here, and it looks like it'll be just like Surface. There will probably be a few cameras here and there, so while very cool, it won't be very useful.
Think about what it would take to make this more universal (like street view). MS would have to get cameras placed all over. Even just limiting it to a few cities (Seattle, NY, SF), for example, would be an enormous undertaking to provide any sort of coverage beyond a half-dozen or so landmarks. Look, it's the Pike Place Market, and now, it's Times Square. Cool on its own, but ultimately little more than a gimmick, a tech demo.
Check it out:
I'd love to. Surface seems like it would be pretty cool to play with for about 10 minutes. Call me when I can encounter one in my day-to-day life and not have to watch an MS video or take a vacation to see one. Until then, it's just a gimmick, no matter how amazingly cool it is to operate.
What are some flaws in FileVault that might make me prefer EncFS?
I've only been thinking of activating FileVault lately and my only other experience has been with ELI in FBSD.
The "flaws" in FileVault (really, just limitations, but whatever), are that they aren't backed up via Time Machine while you're logged in, and space isn't freed up until you log out.
He states that it takes a long time to log out, but that's not true as of Snow Leopard. Sparsebundles recover space very quickly, and you can cancel the logout clean up process without worry.
As for, why would you prefer EncFS? You wouldn't. It actually does work reliably. FTA:
There are known problems with EncFS, as it only support basic POSIX operations (no locking, extended attributes, etc...). This works well for simple file storage or multiplatform applications, like MacPorts, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc..., but encrypting your whole homedir is known not to work.
In other words, not only can it not replace FileVault, but it can't even be used for the things a normal Mac user might want to encrypt (Mail folder, iPhoto library, etc.).
Bitch all you want about Microsoft, but it was a very impressive demo. Kudos to the software guys who developed this stuff.
That's the problem with Microsoft, their demos are almost *always* impressive. They *always* show off things that make them look better than the competition, but with technology that rarely comes out as shown.
Remember when the iPhone came out, MS demoed their Surface? It was clearly meant to say, "iPhone, schmiphone, look how cool *our* product is!" Years later, I'm still waiting for all those cool Surfaces to start popping up. In the meantime, the iPhone has gone on to both redefine the smartphone market, has been improved twice, spawned a new product, and become a huge success.
Right now MS is on a major offensive against Google. This, as of right now, is just another smoke-and-mirrors fake-out meant to make people think Bing Maps is more amazing than it is. I'm not saying that Bing Maps isn't pretty cool, just that this is meant to make it look as though is significantly better than it is.
In this controlled demo, they had a guy with a camera and a wireless connection at the market. It was certainly very cool, but until this is something that *I* can actually use, it's just another promised amazing new technology that MS has yet to actually deliver on. And in this particular case, it seems like something that will be only available in a few places, as token, "see how cool this is", but not universal enough to be more than a novelty.
Say what you want about Google's perpetual Beta and Apple's secrecy, but at least I know that when Google announces something, I can start using it at some reasonable point in the future, and when Apple does, that the product shown is finished enough to be in stores once production and regulatory paperwork are covered.
Yes, and if you can prove you have a proper key (trivial), you can have it white listed. Helps if you registered your copy of Windows.
Not trivial. Even the standard, "you installed this too many times in too short a timespan" call is a bit beyond trivial (although I wouldn't argue the point to strongly).
As for registering, I almost never register anything. All it does is put you on a mailing list for pretty much zero benefit. If you need warranty repair, your receipt works just fine.
People's chances of actually having a pirated version of Windows from a commercially produced system these days in the US is very small. Sucks if your system builder used a pirated key, but 99% of windows users will not run into that issue. If your brother's friend built you a machine on the cheap, then it could be an issue.
False positives. They happen, I've seen it on a name brand PC.
The problem with WGA/WAT is not that it's out of line for MS to have anti-piracy measures in place. The problem is that it degrades your computer, regardless of whether you actually pirated it or not.
Any such system that can reasonably be expected to err on the side of disabling functionality of legitimate owners is broken. MS should have to have some measure of proof before doing something like this, not the other way around.
Not to mention that it's trivial to get your machine re-authorized over the phone if you actually did buy your copy of the OS and end up being a false positive.
This is not what you are thinking it is.
You're referring to having to call MS when the regular authentication fails, or if hardware changes trigger it.
This is when MS determines your OS is pirated, and it does not follow the same process of call them up, read a really long code, say you are installing on a new computer, and then type in another really long code.
The process here is that Windows demands you enter in a proper key, which means buying a new key. There is some method for proving your copy is legit, but it's nothing like what you are thinking it is.
False. Windows 7 installation is not merely, "insert disc, power computer, press next, reboot and software update finishes the rest". It is similar, but there are Linuxes that are similar as well.
But regardless of all that, that's most definitely *not* how Windows 7 installs.
This is silly. This only works for whole units. One could easily say the same thing about metric, 12cm and 1.2 meters, and so on.
Besides, since division by 3 only works once in imperial units. Interestingly, it's actually *easier* to divide by 2 in metric. 1 meter / 2 is 0.5m or 500cm. It's simply a matter of moving a decimal point, whereas in imperial units, you have to convert between feet and inches to go from 0.5 ft to 6 inches (not that that's hard, just that it's even *easier* in metric).
Ever tried to split something up into 5 equal parts without the aid of a scale?
You can do that easier somehow in imperial units?
Rationales always depend on context and not all contexts are interchangeable.
Sort of, but there are so few contexts in modern life where imperial units are superior, that it's not worth degrading performance in all other contexts.
Some methods are better for machines, and some are better for people.
N.B., computers don't deal with KiB or KB. They deal exclusively in binary. KiB and KB (and MiB and MB, etc.) are what the computer tells us instead of something like, "101101010010".
The only situation where KiB has any direct connection to what the computer is doing is in terms of addressing capabilities, as addressing naturally falls into binary-based boundaries.
Put Windows CD in computer. Turn on. Click "next". After the install is done, Windows Update starts automatically, and grabs most of the specific drivers.
Um, that's most definitely *not* how Windows installs. Not any version ever installed like that.
You're making the same mistake as the people on the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD 'fight'. It's not about who has a bigger share, but whether either has a share comparable to that which came before it.
h.264 has already won. The problem facing BD is that people are still overwhelming buying DVDs. On the other hand, for new videos, h.264 is the standard. It would be like if people were buying more BDs than DVDs.
h.264 has already won. Theora is a fantasy. It has its chance, and it lost. Today it's an inferior codec, so it's never going to get its chance again.
If h.264 wrapped in flash continues being the de-facto standard of the web, then we have won nothing. And that's exactly what's going to happen if Apple continues to refuse Theora, for the reasons I've already explained.
You haven't explained shit. If Apple and Google embrace html5, then you'll see sites offering the superior html5 experience along side the legacy Flash experience.
If Firefox wants to stick with Theora-only, they're simply relegating themselves to becoming a second-class citizen on the web. I could support their stance in holding out for Theora *if* it were a better codec and *if* they actually had a chance of triumphing. But it's not, and they won't.
You are right in one aspect, however. If h.264 via Flash remains the standard, we will have won nothing. The catch is that this will only be true for browsers which do not support h.264. In other words, Firefox.
As for the rest of us, we will have won something very nice indeed. We will have won freedom from Flash. If Firefox truly wants to win the war, they better surrender this battle. It would truly be a shame for them to begin to lose their hard-won market share. Fortunately, instead of ceding ground to IE, Chrome and Safari will be there to pick up the slack.
If you want something to panic about, be more concerned about the huge unshielded fusion reactor that's bathing you in ionizing radiation with a power of hundreds of watts per square.
Hundreds of watts per square...? Square what?
Or do you actually mean, per square, as in, per slashdotter?
h.264 video outnumbers Theora video on the web by many orders of magnitude. Perhaps you missed the memo, but YouTube, Apple and Hulu all use h.264 extensively. Asserting that h.264 has somehow lost is delusional.
As it stands, h.264 is the dominant web format for new video, only possibly outnumbered by legacy videos (which are very much *not* encoded with Theora).
Claiming that 1/4 of the desktops on the web can't view h.264 is rather amusing given that the vast majority of Firefox installs play h.264 just fine, as they almost universally have the Flash plug-in.
and is not, in practice, any more free for the end-user.
That is provably false. I would go ahead and prove it, but it's been done to death. But the short form: If you encode video with h264 today, in 2016 you may be getting a bill.
All you've done is proven that it's true for now, and that, maybe, in 2016, it won't be true.
For my own safety, I can not use h264 video on my website. And if I don't, then iPhone users won't be able to view videos on my website. Etc, etc.
Yes, you can use it. No, you won't get a bill. Not until, *maybe*, 2016.
And what happens in 2016? *If* the bill ever comes, you can just pull the h.264 videos offline (or even, gasp!, pay the bill). I'm not saying to not also encode and offer the videos in Theora as well. I'm just suggesting that pre-emptively limiting your potential audience, and limiting the quality of your web site on the grounds of something that *might* happen in six years is a bit extreme.
At least, we freetards would get something to run on opensource such as Firefox, on other Theora-browsers such as Opera, and on our hobbyist and community projects. One bad solution (even more if it is only bad in 10% of situations in fact) is better than no solution at all.
Look, if you run solely 100% free software, (so, Opera is out, and Firefox on Windows and Mac is out), you may have a leg to stand on. Except you really don't, as you can *right now* play h.264 with completely free software.
There's no legal or technical reason that Firefox can't support h.264 across Mac, Windows and Linux. The only reason it's left out is for blatantly political reasons.
Freetards running Firefox, Opera or other Theora supporting web-browser (F/LOSS version of Chromium) will have something, in a dual H.264/Theora world. In a h264-only world, they would be forced to switch to the binary Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, or go back to using BLOBs such as Flash or system codecs.
Not true. First off, I'm just fine with sites providing both h.264 and Theora. The problem is that Firefox wants no h.264 option at all. In other words, they do not want people to be able to use the superior codec. But more to your specific claim, you can use x264 or ffmpeg, no BLOBs, Flash, or system codecs required. It's possible Mozilla may wish to avoid bundling x264 with Firefox in the US, but it can be easily supported as a completely open source plugin the user can install themselves (it can even be integrated in a "click here to install" link just like it does with Flash currently).
In a world were Theora is also available, the users of such device would be happy to at least have this, even if in 10% of situation the quality is worse.
So, a 10% worse solution, for far, far less than 10% of the users? Doesn't sound like a net win to me.
By luck, the 3 devices I mentioned have hardware for decoding h264 inside their OMAPs, so they won't probably suffer from this problem (is there a VA-API or whatever released to that chip ?).
So in other words, it's not even a problem for those less than 10%! Wow.
So, for some other community project that doesn't happen to use hardware that can decode h.264, they'll just have to use ffmpeg, x264, or do without. I can't fathom avoiding a technology that works absolutely wonderfully for myself, for fear that some potential minute group of people who might want to make some hobby box won't be able to stream YouTube. It's absurd. It's so absurd that I pulled out the term 'freetard' specifically, because no other term so succinctly conveyed the absurdity of the situation.
Or, put differently, if YouTube and Hulu gave users a choice between h.264 and Theora, everyone (except the eople who care about freedom) would choose h.264.
There, fixed that for you. (I normally don't use that phrase, but in this case you really did drink the kool-aid.)
I care about freedom. I like the idea of Theora, but the reality of it is far less compelling.
I used 'freetard' deliberately because it's a case where someone uses a free technology, which is both inferior to the non-free technology (in every way, with the sole exception of being non-free), and is not, in practice, any more free for the end-user.
I can respect sticking to one's values, and I can *totally* respect advocating freedom, but something like this is *total* freetard territory.
Yes, maybe some of them support Theora. But *ALL* of them support h.264. And this completely ignores devices that use batteries. Hardware h.264 wins hands down in this regard.
This is absurd. You're arguing in favor of the inferior codec on the grounds that, "for 90% of the video, it won't matter." What about the 10% for which it does?
Or, put differently, if YouTube and Hulu gave users a choice between h.264 and Theora, everyone (except the freetards (I normally don't use that term, but in this case it really does apply)) would choose h.264.
Slashdot Mirror
So what gives?
Um, where to even begin...
First, iPhone's market share isn't 2%. You're off by more than an order of magnitude.
Second, Apple tends to release products that defines or redefine a market. The Apple I/II defined the PC. The Mac redefined the PC. The PowerBook defined the notebook. The iPod redefined the PMP. The iPhone redefined the smart phone. Now the iPad is going to redefined the tablet computer.
And every time Apple did this there were people who complained about the new product definition. They all said these things were toys or were underpowered or blah, blah, blah. Dvorak famously stated that the Mac was doomed because he didn't think anyone would ever want to use a mouse. The only product in that list that didn't have a gigantic chorus of naysayers was the iPhone (and even then, there were complaints).
Now, of course, there were portable computers before the PowerBook, there were GUIs (in labs) before the Mac/Lisa. There was *a* PC before the Apple I (the Altair 8800, which can only *barely* be called a PC). There were smartphones before the iPhone and PMPs before the iPod.
And today, there have been tablet computers before the iPad.
So, why the fuss? First, looking at Apple's history, the iPad fits in quite well. There are even the naysayers who are decrying its lack of features or its method of interaction. Of course, time will tell who is right, but I highly suspect that in a few years time, all small tablets will be iPads, the same way all PCs today are Macs and all smartphones (except Blackberry) are iPhones. Specifically, in the sense that there will be a clear pre-iPad and post-iPad market, and the majority of devices post-iPad will more closely resemble the iPad than they will resemble the tablet designs of the past.
Exactly, I want a device that lasts for days either on or in a sleep that takes 3 seconds to wake from
The iPad *does* run for days with the screen locked. The display is really the only thing that limits the battery to 10 hours[*] of video.
[*] Claimed by Apple, of course, so we'll see how it pans out in practice. Apple's battery claims do tend to be far more honest than the rest of the industry, though, so even if it's not 10, it'll be at least something like 8 or so.
A decent (matte) LCD that doesn't need to be turned up to searing levels in order to be readable outside
There exists no consumer LCD device that can attain "searing levels" outside. Unless you mean outside on a moonless, overcast night in the wilderness.
All LCDs are way dimmer than the sun. They are not going to cause eyestrain from the brightness, unless it's for the lack of it.
Also, matte LCDs are crap outdoors because of the way they scatter the light. It's the same idea as why you can't see stars in the daytime. With glossy LCDs, you can at least turn or shade them.
I just saw a video on Channel 9 showing that the Hard Rock Cafe is using Microsoft Surface and other touchscreen devices in a few of their restaurants.
Oh, I'm well aware that they exist, but they are still little more than novelties, which is exactly the point I'm getting at.
While MS is announcing products that aren't ready, in controlled demos that are very impressive, Apple and Google ship actual products that people actually use.
Considering the device was only release about 2 years ago and has such a large price tag I am still impressed with what they have done.
It's hardly impressive that there are a handful of places using Surface. Even if Surface totally sucked (which it doesn't, it only half-sucks. It's a cool technology, but with extremely limited practical use), MS would be able to get a few high profile installations.
But more specifically to my point, Surface was announced to counter the iPhone. It was a controlled tech demo, which was really impressive, but years later we just have a few novelty installations.
Now, look at the Bing Maps demo. While some of the features are a bit better than Google Maps, it's the camera overlay that is the headliner here, and it looks like it'll be just like Surface. There will probably be a few cameras here and there, so while very cool, it won't be very useful.
Think about what it would take to make this more universal (like street view). MS would have to get cameras placed all over. Even just limiting it to a few cities (Seattle, NY, SF), for example, would be an enormous undertaking to provide any sort of coverage beyond a half-dozen or so landmarks. Look, it's the Pike Place Market, and now, it's Times Square. Cool on its own, but ultimately little more than a gimmick, a tech demo.
Check it out:
I'd love to. Surface seems like it would be pretty cool to play with for about 10 minutes. Call me when I can encounter one in my day-to-day life and not have to watch an MS video or take a vacation to see one. Until then, it's just a gimmick, no matter how amazingly cool it is to operate.
Where I wrote:
As for, why would you prefer EncFS? You wouldn't. It actually does work reliably. FTA:
I meant:
As for, why would you prefer EncFS? You wouldn't. It actually doesn't work reliably. FTA:
What are some flaws in FileVault that might make me prefer EncFS?
I've only been thinking of activating FileVault lately and my only other experience has been with ELI in FBSD.
The "flaws" in FileVault (really, just limitations, but whatever), are that they aren't backed up via Time Machine while you're logged in, and space isn't freed up until you log out.
He states that it takes a long time to log out, but that's not true as of Snow Leopard. Sparsebundles recover space very quickly, and you can cancel the logout clean up process without worry.
As for, why would you prefer EncFS? You wouldn't. It actually does work reliably. FTA:
In other words, not only can it not replace FileVault, but it can't even be used for the things a normal Mac user might want to encrypt (Mail folder, iPhoto library, etc.).
Bitch all you want about Microsoft, but it was a very impressive demo. Kudos to the software guys who developed this stuff.
That's the problem with Microsoft, their demos are almost *always* impressive. They *always* show off things that make them look better than the competition, but with technology that rarely comes out as shown.
Remember when the iPhone came out, MS demoed their Surface? It was clearly meant to say, "iPhone, schmiphone, look how cool *our* product is!" Years later, I'm still waiting for all those cool Surfaces to start popping up. In the meantime, the iPhone has gone on to both redefine the smartphone market, has been improved twice, spawned a new product, and become a huge success.
Right now MS is on a major offensive against Google. This, as of right now, is just another smoke-and-mirrors fake-out meant to make people think Bing Maps is more amazing than it is. I'm not saying that Bing Maps isn't pretty cool, just that this is meant to make it look as though is significantly better than it is.
In this controlled demo, they had a guy with a camera and a wireless connection at the market. It was certainly very cool, but until this is something that *I* can actually use, it's just another promised amazing new technology that MS has yet to actually deliver on. And in this particular case, it seems like something that will be only available in a few places, as token, "see how cool this is", but not universal enough to be more than a novelty.
Say what you want about Google's perpetual Beta and Apple's secrecy, but at least I know that when Google announces something, I can start using it at some reasonable point in the future, and when Apple does, that the product shown is finished enough to be in stores once production and regulatory paperwork are covered.
Yes, and if you can prove you have a proper key (trivial), you can have it white listed. Helps if you registered your copy of Windows.
Not trivial. Even the standard, "you installed this too many times in too short a timespan" call is a bit beyond trivial (although I wouldn't argue the point to strongly).
As for registering, I almost never register anything. All it does is put you on a mailing list for pretty much zero benefit. If you need warranty repair, your receipt works just fine.
People's chances of actually having a pirated version of Windows from a commercially produced system these days in the US is very small. Sucks if your system builder used a pirated key, but 99% of windows users will not run into that issue. If your brother's friend built you a machine on the cheap, then it could be an issue.
False positives. They happen, I've seen it on a name brand PC.
The problem with WGA/WAT is not that it's out of line for MS to have anti-piracy measures in place. The problem is that it degrades your computer, regardless of whether you actually pirated it or not.
Any such system that can reasonably be expected to err on the side of disabling functionality of legitimate owners is broken. MS should have to have some measure of proof before doing something like this, not the other way around.
Not to mention that it's trivial to get your machine re-authorized over the phone if you actually did buy your copy of the OS and end up being a false positive.
This is not what you are thinking it is.
You're referring to having to call MS when the regular authentication fails, or if hardware changes trigger it.
This is when MS determines your OS is pirated, and it does not follow the same process of call them up, read a really long code, say you are installing on a new computer, and then type in another really long code.
The process here is that Windows demands you enter in a proper key, which means buying a new key. There is some method for proving your copy is legit, but it's nothing like what you are thinking it is.
What GP described is precisely how Vista and 7 work.
Untrue. See my post to the reply above yours.
Windows 7 is close, but most definitely not that precise process.
False. Windows 7 installation is not merely, "insert disc, power computer, press next, reboot and software update finishes the rest". It is similar, but there are Linuxes that are similar as well.
But regardless of all that, that's most definitely *not* how Windows 7 installs.
Divisible by 3 and 2, both easy to "eyeball".
This is silly. This only works for whole units. One could easily say the same thing about metric, 12cm and 1.2 meters, and so on.
Besides, since division by 3 only works once in imperial units. Interestingly, it's actually *easier* to divide by 2 in metric. 1 meter / 2 is 0.5m or 500cm. It's simply a matter of moving a decimal point, whereas in imperial units, you have to convert between feet and inches to go from 0.5 ft to 6 inches (not that that's hard, just that it's even *easier* in metric).
Ever tried to split something up into 5 equal parts without the aid of a scale?
You can do that easier somehow in imperial units?
Rationales always depend on context and not all contexts are interchangeable.
Sort of, but there are so few contexts in modern life where imperial units are superior, that it's not worth degrading performance in all other contexts.
Some methods are better for machines, and some are better for people.
N.B., computers don't deal with KiB or KB. They deal exclusively in binary. KiB and KB (and MiB and MB, etc.) are what the computer tells us instead of something like, "101101010010".
The only situation where KiB has any direct connection to what the computer is doing is in terms of addressing capabilities, as addressing naturally falls into binary-based boundaries.
Put Windows CD in computer. Turn on. Click "next". After the install is done, Windows Update starts automatically, and grabs most of the specific drivers.
Um, that's most definitely *not* how Windows installs. Not any version ever installed like that.
You're making the same mistake as the people on the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD 'fight'. It's not about who has a bigger share, but whether either has a share comparable to that which came before it.
h.264 has already won. The problem facing BD is that people are still overwhelming buying DVDs. On the other hand, for new videos, h.264 is the standard. It would be like if people were buying more BDs than DVDs.
h.264 has already won. Theora is a fantasy. It has its chance, and it lost. Today it's an inferior codec, so it's never going to get its chance again.
If h.264 wrapped in flash continues being the de-facto standard of the web, then we have won nothing. And that's exactly what's going to happen if Apple continues to refuse Theora, for the reasons I've already explained.
You haven't explained shit. If Apple and Google embrace html5, then you'll see sites offering the superior html5 experience along side the legacy Flash experience.
If Firefox wants to stick with Theora-only, they're simply relegating themselves to becoming a second-class citizen on the web. I could support their stance in holding out for Theora *if* it were a better codec and *if* they actually had a chance of triumphing. But it's not, and they won't.
You are right in one aspect, however. If h.264 via Flash remains the standard, we will have won nothing. The catch is that this will only be true for browsers which do not support h.264. In other words, Firefox.
As for the rest of us, we will have won something very nice indeed. We will have won freedom from Flash. If Firefox truly wants to win the war, they better surrender this battle. It would truly be a shame for them to begin to lose their hard-won market share. Fortunately, instead of ceding ground to IE, Chrome and Safari will be there to pick up the slack.
If firefox can be pointed to youtube and videos don't play
That already happens. Mozilla doesn't use the IE Flash plugin, you have to install it yourself.
and there is no obvious solution to make them play
There's no reason, other than political, that Firefox can't show a missing plug-in icon, just like with Flash, that redirects to an h.264 plugin.
If you want something to panic about, be more concerned about the huge unshielded fusion reactor that's bathing you in ionizing radiation with a power of hundreds of watts per square.
Hundreds of watts per square...? Square what?
Or do you actually mean, per square, as in, per slashdotter?
h.264 video outnumbers Theora video on the web by many orders of magnitude. Perhaps you missed the memo, but YouTube, Apple and Hulu all use h.264 extensively. Asserting that h.264 has somehow lost is delusional.
As it stands, h.264 is the dominant web format for new video, only possibly outnumbered by legacy videos (which are very much *not* encoded with Theora).
Claiming that 1/4 of the desktops on the web can't view h.264 is rather amusing given that the vast majority of Firefox installs play h.264 just fine, as they almost universally have the Flash plug-in.
In contrast, Firefox can never implement native support for H.264 because of the licencing issues involved.
This is not true.
Free software that decodes H.264 cannot be distributed in countries that recognize MPEG LA members' patents.
Strictly speaking, this is not true.
and is not, in practice, any more free for the end-user.
That is provably false. I would go ahead and prove it, but it's been done to death. But the short form: If you encode video with h264 today, in 2016 you may be getting a bill.
All you've done is proven that it's true for now, and that, maybe, in 2016, it won't be true.
For my own safety, I can not use h264 video on my website. And if I don't, then iPhone users won't be able to view videos on my website. Etc, etc.
Yes, you can use it. No, you won't get a bill. Not until, *maybe*, 2016.
And what happens in 2016? *If* the bill ever comes, you can just pull the h.264 videos offline (or even, gasp!, pay the bill). I'm not saying to not also encode and offer the videos in Theora as well. I'm just suggesting that pre-emptively limiting your potential audience, and limiting the quality of your web site on the grounds of something that *might* happen in six years is a bit extreme.
At least, we freetards would get something to run on opensource such as Firefox, on other Theora-browsers such as Opera, and on our hobbyist and community projects. One bad solution (even more if it is only bad in 10% of situations in fact) is better than no solution at all.
Look, if you run solely 100% free software, (so, Opera is out, and Firefox on Windows and Mac is out), you may have a leg to stand on. Except you really don't, as you can *right now* play h.264 with completely free software.
There's no legal or technical reason that Firefox can't support h.264 across Mac, Windows and Linux. The only reason it's left out is for blatantly political reasons.
Freetards running Firefox, Opera or other Theora supporting web-browser (F/LOSS version of Chromium) will have something, in a dual H.264/Theora world. In a h264-only world, they would be forced to switch to the binary Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, or go back to using BLOBs such as Flash or system codecs.
Not true. First off, I'm just fine with sites providing both h.264 and Theora. The problem is that Firefox wants no h.264 option at all. In other words, they do not want people to be able to use the superior codec. But more to your specific claim, you can use x264 or ffmpeg, no BLOBs, Flash, or system codecs required. It's possible Mozilla may wish to avoid bundling x264 with Firefox in the US, but it can be easily supported as a completely open source plugin the user can install themselves (it can even be integrated in a "click here to install" link just like it does with Flash currently).
In a world were Theora is also available, the users of such device would be happy to at least have this, even if in 10% of situation the quality is worse.
So, a 10% worse solution, for far, far less than 10% of the users? Doesn't sound like a net win to me.
By luck, the 3 devices I mentioned have hardware for decoding h264 inside their OMAPs, so they won't probably suffer from this problem (is there a VA-API or whatever released to that chip ?).
So in other words, it's not even a problem for those less than 10%! Wow.
So, for some other community project that doesn't happen to use hardware that can decode h.264, they'll just have to use ffmpeg, x264, or do without. I can't fathom avoiding a technology that works absolutely wonderfully for myself, for fear that some potential minute group of people who might want to make some hobby box won't be able to stream YouTube. It's absurd. It's so absurd that I pulled out the term 'freetard' specifically, because no other term so succinctly conveyed the absurdity of the situation.
Is it just one with multiple accounts with modpoints, or is there a group? There's no way that my comment is flamebait if the parent comment isn't.
I get the same thing from time to time. Just shrug it off, there's really nothing else you can do.
the person who called FoSS users "freetards"
I never once called F/OSS users "freetards". I even made it explicitly clear to the contrary, that I'm using it in this particular case specifically.
Or, put differently, if YouTube and Hulu gave users a choice between h.264 and Theora, everyone (except the eople who care about freedom) would choose h.264.
There, fixed that for you. (I normally don't use that phrase, but in this case you really did drink the kool-aid.)
I care about freedom. I like the idea of Theora, but the reality of it is far less compelling.
I used 'freetard' deliberately because it's a case where someone uses a free technology, which is both inferior to the non-free technology (in every way, with the sole exception of being non-free), and is not, in practice, any more free for the end-user.
I can respect sticking to one's values, and I can *totally* respect advocating freedom, but something like this is *total* freetard territory.
Yes, maybe some of them support Theora. But *ALL* of them support h.264. And this completely ignores devices that use batteries. Hardware h.264 wins hands down in this regard.
This is absurd. You're arguing in favor of the inferior codec on the grounds that, "for 90% of the video, it won't matter." What about the 10% for which it does?
Or, put differently, if YouTube and Hulu gave users a choice between h.264 and Theora, everyone (except the freetards (I normally don't use that term, but in this case it really does apply)) would choose h.264.